W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2003

Re: #foo URI references

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:12:31 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030710133849.016616a0@172.27.10.30>
To: uri@w3.org

At 15:08 2003 07 10 +0200, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>>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.

>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.


My previously described use case was just one example.

Are you saying that it never makes sense for an author to use
xml:base or HTML's BASE element?

If we change how #foo works from what's described in RFC 2396 to 
what's described in 2396-bis, how does an author of a document 
that uses xml:base or HTML's BASE author a link in that document 
that is certain to be an intra-document link?

paul
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 15:16:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC