Re: #foo URI references

At 19:08 2003 09 20 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Roy T. Fielding scripsit:
>
>> >The semantic change is to extend #foo semantics to BASE#foo 
>> >URI-references.
>> 
>> That's odd -- I would call that a behavioral change, since the meaning
>> of the link hasn't changed at all; I only selected one of the ways the
>> link could be satisfied and made it the standard.  Before it was left
>> up to the application.
>
>Fair enough.  So the special interpretation of "#foo" in the resource
>denoted by "http://www.example.com/blargh" is extended to "blargh#foo"
>and "http://www.example.com/blargh#foo" as well.
>
>But it seems to me that (for good or ill) this also means that if a
>base URI is available, say "http://www.example.com/stat/blargh", then
>"#foo" now means "http://www.example.com/stat/blargh#foo".
>
>Is this a correct reading of 2396 bis?


And if John is reading it correctly (he is reading it as I did),
then this is the crux of my problem with it.

paul