W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

RE: QName URI Scheme Re-Visited, Revised, and Revealing

From: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:23:03 +1200
Message-ID: <B57613845A50D211864C0000F8FA5C2804207539@mars.otago.ac.nz>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Sean Palmer wrote:
> I think you'll find that a) FragID syntax is independant of 
> URI scheme [...]

I'm not convinced this is true.  The definition of a fragment
identifier says (at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt):

  When a URI reference is used to perform a retrieval action on the
  identified resource, the optional fragment identifier, separated from
  the URI by a crosshatch ("#") character, consists of additional
  reference information to be interpreted by the user agent after the
  retrieval action has been successfully completed.  As such, it is not
  part of a URI, but is often used in conjunction with a URI.

This specifically defines a fragment URI as information related
to a retrieval action.  Therefore one could argue that it doesn't make 
sense to have a fragment identifier if the URI scheme is intended to
denote names with no implied retrieval mechanism.

- Stephen
Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 02:21:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC