- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@apache.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:08:07 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
- Cc: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, uri@w3.org
> This really does look like a serious problem. Some people want #foo to > be the same as it was in 2396 and some people probably describe that > as a bug in 2396. :-) > > On the whole, given the significance of the change, I think it would > be better to stick with the status quo. We have a choice: either 1) the fragment is part of the URI and there is one process for handling it, or 2) the fragment is an auxiliary instruction to the user agent that is removed prior to URI processing. I can work with one or the other, but not both depending on context. The parsing libraries need to know what answer to provide. In this case, I find Paul's use case to be less compelling than the desire by RDF to only deal with things in terms of URIs. His example application is already modifying the document to insert the base URI; it can modify the internal references as well and not suffer from the problem described. Partial archiving is not a use-case that needs to be optimized. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 09:57:32 UTC