- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:12:03 -0700
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
>> 9 #s http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s {testpage URI}#s
>
> This goes back to my earlier email on "intra-document" URI references.
> I thought I finally understood Roy's explanation, but I guess I never
> did.
>
> I kept saying that a "fragment identifier only" relative URI
> reference should reference the current resource regardless
> of the base URI, and Roy kept giving answers that I didn't
> understand until John Cowan finally convinced me Roy's words
> were a different way of saying the equivalent thing.
>
> But my (and Amaya's and Opera's) understanding of RFC 2396 is
> that #s should resolve to {testpage URI}#s, so if Roy's rewrite
> of RFC 2396bis now has #s resolving to http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s
> when the #s relative URI reference lives in another resource,
> then I still think this is a change in semantics to RFC 2396,
> and one that breaks things (such as the several examples I
> gave in the earlier thread).
And, as I said earlier, the URI reference resolves to
"http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s" for both specifications. The requirement
for same-document references applies ONLY to the action of
retrieval, which is a different test case, and again for both
specifications the correct action is to treat the reference
as within the current document. The only way to test that is
to actually select the link (for a browser application).
....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 16:12:07 UTC