- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:17:42 -0800
- To: "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@w3.org>, "'Al Gilman'" <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
I'm not sure I'd call it "abuse". But when moving a document from Draft Standard to Standard, it's reasonable to restrict backward incompatible changes; if this is the "legacy" view, so be it. I believe that it has been legitimate for URI implementations to assume that the main URI can be separated from its fragment, handed off to a separate URI access mechanism (which looks at the scheme and does scheme specific processing) and then the fragment is applied after the results have been accessed, without reference to the scheme or any of the other components of the URI. This isn't "http" specific, because it works across access schemes http, ftp, file, data, cid, Other kinds of processing, hinting, and uses of fragments during processing might be _allowed_ and even reasonable, but *requiring* that the scheme-specific implementation can access the fragment (by defining the scheme-specific fragment interpretation) should not be allowed. Larry
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 20:18:05 UTC