- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:47:20 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
* Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>I think what Stuart is noting is that a fragment is also not passed
>for PUT or POST or any other action on the URI via HTTP. I am still
>thinking of a way to rephrase it. Perhaps what it should say is that
>the fragment is not passed to another system upon dereference of the
>URI?
This seems out of scope for a generic syntax specification. I see no
reason why it should prohibe to define a protocol that is capable of
redirecting references to doc1#foo to doc2#bar or convert a reference
to doc#xpointer(id("abstract")/range-to(id("acks"))) into a protocol
specific fragment request for, after all, the identified fragment.
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 20:47:27 UTC