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

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

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:11:52 -0800
To: "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hp.com>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Message-id: <0HTL00D0SMG7AU@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

Well, after thinking about this a bit, I've changed my mind.

> 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.

I think fragment identifiers are only defined for use with retrieval,
because the semantics of the fragment are (supposed to be, at least)
defined by the media type of the retrieved result. With other operations,
there is no clear media type.

Using fragment identifiers for other purposes, with PUT,
POST, or any other operation, shouldn't be defined in the
IETF 'Standard'. Maybe someone wants to propose some other
semantics for fragment identifiers with operations other
than retrieval, but I don't think this document is the right
place to include those extensions.

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 12:14:02 UTC

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