- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:10:09 -0800
- To: uri@w3.org
> I don't in any way disagree with what you write below or Larry's
> comment.
>
> I also don't see how it contradicts my statement that fragids
> force one into the domain of document retrieval since no matter
> how you model it, you cannot get from a URIref with fragid to
> a representation of the secondary resource without *first*
> obtaining a representation of the primary resource.
There is a proposal floating around for a common fragment
identifier mechanism for access to time-streaming resources,
independent of the access method, whether you use rtsp: or sip: or
http: or tv: or whatever.
draft-pfeiffer-temporal-fragments-02.txt
So if there is a streaming media source of a 5-hour video
presentation, there's a common way of accessing "3 hours
into the video", that is independent of the URI scheme.
I'd think this would be useful even for 'info' and 'urn'.
This isn't "document retrieval", in the sense that there is
any MIME body for the 5-hour video, but it does still separate
out the application of the fragment identifier from the URI
scheme.
Larry
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 16:10:59 UTC