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

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

From: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:39:57 -0000
Message-ID: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A0A60D6D1@elslonexc004.eslo.co.uk>
To: 'Larry Masinter' <LMM@acm.org>, "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hp.com>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, 'Graham Klyne' <GK@NineByNine.org>

Hi Larry:

> 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.

I wonder what this means with respect to the INFO URI scheme which defines a
fragment component as a regular part of the syntax,

	info-URI = info-scheme ":" info-identifier [ "#" fragment ] 

while at the same time asserting that INFO URIs are non-dereferenceable (and
hence there are no representations and no associated media types). In
discussing the use of fragment components in the INFO I-D we use language
which is closely aligned with that used in 2396bis (sect 3.5) to assert

	The (unescaped) values for the "fragment" component identify
      information assets with respect to the primary information asset 
      which is referenced by the "info-identifier".

It would seem that the historical use of fragment components has been to
provide an addressing mechanism into a resource representation following a
retrieval operation, as commonly used in HTTP requests. But in a pure
information context there may well be non-dereferenceable URIs such as INFO
which still have a clear need to articulate secondary resources with respect
to primary resources. So I do query what the role of media type is in these

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 06:40:02 UTC

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