- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:10:30 -0700
- To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
No URI scheme definition BNF includes the definition of the fragment identifier, because the fragment identifier is relative to the content-type of any retrieved value, not relative to the scheme itself. Putting HTML in a 'data:' URI is a bit of a stretch, because of the necessity of escaping%20all%20of%20the%20spaces, but I suppose you could do it. I suppose this should be clarified in the various documents on URI scheme registration, because there have been some attempts in the past to define scheme-specific fragment identifiers due to this misunderstanding. > There is some constant confusion around relative references and > references to fragments using the data: URL scheme. In particular, > some people argue that references of the form data:...#fragment > are not allowed (because the BNF in RFC 2397 does not mention this) > and if the following fragments are part of the data part in e.g. > data:text/html;charset=utf-8,... > > ... <a href='#fragment'> ... > > or > > ... <a href='text/html;charset-utf-8,...'> ... > > this is either not allowed either and/or processing of it is not > defined. This confusion is caused in part by the assertion in RFC > 2397 that 'The "data" URL scheme has no relative URL forms.' Could > you clarify which of these forms of references are allowed and how > to process them? There are some other issues in the RFC, ideally > someone would make a second edition of it. What do you think? If there are other issues, please specify. I think the fragment identifier issue is more general than 'data:' though.
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2006 18:10:51 UTC