- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:45:06 -0400
- To: "Lynn, James (Software Escalations)" <james.lynn@hp.com>
- Cc: "r.j.koppes" <rikkert@rikkertkoppes.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On 2007-06 -06, at 09:02, Lynn, James (Software Escalations) wrote: > But then does the same restriction apply to fragment identifiers? In > other words if a server returns a fragment for > http://www.example.com/mophor#me The server doesn't see http://www.example.com/mophor#me. "http://www.example.com/mophor#me" means "The defined by local identifier 'me' in the document 'http://www.example.com/mophor#me' " This is the web architecture. The client strips off the '#me' and acceses the dcoument <http://www.example.com/mophor> (if it hasn't already for some other id in the same document). The server sends back a document telling it about <http:// www.example.com/mophor#me> and maybe other things. > is it unacceptable to use it as a URI > for oneself? It is very acceptable to use "http://www.example.com/mophor#me" as a URI for oneself. Recomended, in fact. You should have one. Mine is http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i Actually if I did it againt I would have made it http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#TBL makes it a bit clearer. Tim BL
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 13:45:08 UTC