- From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 14:43:51 +0000
- To: "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1CD55F04538DEA4F85F3ADF7745464AF24C83893@S-BSC-MBX1.nrn.nrcan.gc.ca>
Hi, According to HTTP [1], The target URI excludes the reference's fragment component, if any, since fragment identifiers are reserved for client-side processing ([RFC3986], Section 3.5<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.5>). OK, so URI [2] is responsible for how fragments are processed. According to [2], the media type is granted broad authority over how fragment identifiers are interpreted, and no URI scheme can take that away. Great! The media type is now in charge. But then, the media type's authority is immediately stripped away: the fragment identifier is not used in the scheme-specific processing of a URI; instead, the fragment identifier is separated from the rest of the URI prior to a dereference, and thus the identifying information within the fragment itself is dereferenced solely by the user agent, regardless of the URI scheme. The following is the justification for the loss of information: it also serves to prevent information providers from denying reference authors the right to refer to information within a resource selectively. Can someone explain that to me, please? I think the 'secondary resource' identified by fragment identifiers could be extremely useful not only on the client but also to the origin server (for example, a hint as to where to start serving out an extremely large resource), so the injunction on their transmission seems to push media type authors towards adding protocol extensions to compensate e.g. a 'Fragment: ' HTTP extension header or something like that. Thanks for your thoughts on the topic. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-5.1 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.5 Peter Rushforth
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 14:44:24 UTC