RE: fragment prose proposal

The RFC 2396 definition for fragments allows URI implementations
to assume that the URI can be separated from its fragment,
the URI handed off to a separate URI access mechanism, and
the fragment applied after the results have been accessed,
without reference to the scheme or any of the other components
of the URI.

This is a reasonable assumption, works well for schemes that
have associated GET semantics, including "file", "ftp",
"http", "data", "cid" and many others.

Allowing schemes to define scheme-specific fragment interpretations
would be a mistake.

> Might it be impertinent to suggest that these document represent a legacy
> view on the function of fragment identifiers in URIs? 

The document in question is attempting to move from "DRAFT STANDARD"
to "STANDARD", and a legacy view is appropriate.

Larry

Received on Sunday, 29 February 2004 16:41:30 UTC