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 15:00:30 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20040227145700.04020d48@localhost>
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org

At 12:57 04/02/27 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:

>At 11:14 AM 2004-02-27, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>At 15:06 04/02/24 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:

>>>Has there been abuse?  Is there a public discussion of it somewhere?
>>
>>Yes, at least proposed. There were proposals for schemes that tried
>>to say something like "in general, you don't need to send the fragment
>>identifier, but for this scheme, you actually do".
>>
>>That's what Larry's statement at
>>http://www.w3.org/mid/0HTK004JSDWDTK@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com
>>would address.
>
>What did Larry say?

I specifically meant:

"I think that the important bit is that the fragment identifier
is not used in the scheme-specific processing of the URI."

I think that's not what you address in your comments below.


Regards,    Martin.


>He said that you can't identify client and server in the future,
>so don't key rules to those roles.
>
>He did offer that one might rephrase the rule as keyed to the
>scheme-specific processing.  But that was simply to avoid the
>above problem.  He wasn't introducing any evidence of
>abuse, that is to say instances where violation of this rule
>had been exploited to do something bad.
>
>Larry's statement is IMHO grounded in HTTP and HTML.  I didn't regard it as
>a position taken after a careful review of the model and functioning of the
>'info' scheme.
>
>'Abuse' requires actual damage, not simply the violation of a clause in a
>draft spec.
>
>Hopefully Larry will find time to comment again.
>
>On the other hand, there may be a perfectly good binding in URI syntax for
>the 'info' model that uses path segments or ?query-part name-value selectors
>rather than #fragments for what the current proposal uses #fragments for.
>
>Al
>
>>Regards,   Martin.
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 16:10:04 UTC

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