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

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

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:11:35 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20040227110924.04408d28@localhost>
To: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, '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>

At 11:39 04/02/25 +0000, Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:

>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
>contexts.

I think if these are really totally undereferencable, then only using
slashes is much better. If they are to be dereferencable via various
indirection mechanisms, then the fragment identifier gets carried
over to the result of subsequent retrieval.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 11:25:10 UTC

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