- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:47:23 +0000
- To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, uri@w3.org
At 12:18 26/02/04 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >>I also think that "A fragment's interpretation is in many schemes allowed >>to depend on the media type [RFC2046] ..." is plain misleading, as it >>suggests that fragment interpretation is some how related to the URI >>scheme (which I think is wrong). > >I got the impression that this is true, and constructively so, >in the 'info' scheme. > >Can you explain why they shouldn't be doing what they are doing? > >How is it 'wrong'? [[ The significance of the fragment identifier is a function of the MIME type of the object This means that the fragment id is opaque for the rest of the client code... ]] and: [[ The fragment ID spec for a new MIME type should be part of the MIME type registration process. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html To my mind, this excludes the signficance of a fragment depending on the URI scheme, except indirectly to the extent that the URI scheme might constrain the MIME type. This position is echoed at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#media-type-fragid #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 05:48:17 UTC