W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems.

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:02:55 -0000
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E8080190051B@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>

Hello Roy,
 
> 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?

Broadly yes, although was trying avoid an HTTP bias. The quoted text express
the constraint in a protocol independent fashion - to retrieval operation.

I'm trying to understand why it is so important to state such a constraint
wrt to retrieval and whether or not, maybe on the basis of minimal
constraint, it was intentionally stated only for retrieval or whether it
should be more universally applied.

Thanks,

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:29 PM
> To: Graham Klyne
> Cc: Stuart Williams; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to 
> other systems.
> 
> 
> On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 08:20  AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> > At 15:02 23/02/04 +0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> >
> >> Roy et. al,
> >>
> >> RFC2396bis [1] Section 3.5 para 4 states: "As such, interpretation of 
> >> the fragment identifier during a retrieval action is performed solely 
> >> by the user agent; the fragment identifier is not passed to other 
> >> systems during the process of retrieval."
> >>
> >> Is the focus of this sentence on retrieval deliberate - ie. the spec 
> >> has nothing to say about whether or not fragment identifiers are 
> >> passed to other systems during operations other than retrieval?
> >>
> >> I'd have expected this prohibition to have been more universal.
> >
> > I'd say that the prohibition must indeed be focused on retrieval.  
> > There are other applications for which it is vital that a fragment 
> > identifier part of a URI be passed to other systems - XML namespaces 
> > and passing RDF data come to mind.
> 
> 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?
> 
> ....Roy
> 
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 05:03:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC