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

Re: fragment prose proposal

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:47:23 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040226233613.02025c70@127.0.0.1>
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

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