- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:37:12 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>, urn@ietf.org, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4D78E218.1010903@stpeter.im>
On 3/10/11 7:12 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 10.03.2011 15:04, Juha Hakala wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 10.03.2011 13:28, Juha Hakala wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Persistent identifiers will be used for multiple purposes, and by the >>>> time we assign e.g. a URN to a resource, we have no idea which >>>> resolution services will be needed in the (distant) future. Lifetime of >>>> a PID may be centuries; applications and the functionality they offer >>>> will change many times during such a period. And eventually even the >>>> copyright protection of a document will expire ;-). >>>> ... >>> >>> I think that statement in itself rules out use of fragment >>> identifiers. At least if you want to stay in sync with the URI spec >>> (RFC 3986). >> >> Can you explain why this would be the case? Please see below why I find >> it difficult to agree. >> ... > > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.3.5>: > > "The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of > representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary > resource. The fragment's format and resolution is therefore dependent on > the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved representation, even > though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If > no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are > considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained. Fragment > identifier semantics are independent of the URI scheme and thus cannot > be redefined by scheme specifications." > > I think this is pretty clear -- if you *can* have representations, > you're constrained by the media types that are used as representations. > There's no way avoiding that if you want to stay aligned with the URI spec. Another way to put it is that you can have representations or free-form semantics, but not both (because along with representations come the constraints of media types, according to RFC 3986). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 14:38:35 UTC