- From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 21:03:03 +0300
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
09.07.2011 13:58, Frank Ellermann wrote: > On 9 July 2011 05:34, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > > Skipping the i18n and security considerations until I see > a new I-D one quick addition: > >>> an unencoded "#" starts the fragment and is interpreted >>> (or ignored) by clients depending on the document. > [...] >> This will also be included in the draft. > Thanks. My comment almost missed the point, the fragment > depends on the document<add> type, it does not depend on > the URI scheme</add>. In the times of "hashbang URIs" it > might be necessary to be as clear as possible about this: > > Fragments are one of the subtle differences between STD 66 > and its predecessors (incl. RFC 1738). OK, this will be clarified. > > For my privacy concerns pick something that does not upset > John or SM -- I'm almost sure that we want the same thing > from different points of view (server admin vs. FTP user, > with "popular" browsers hiding or not offering any choice). I think I'll find corresponding approach to address these concerns in -05. Thanks, Mykyta Yevstifeyev >
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2011 18:02:44 UTC