- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:06:12 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
TAG, I have a comment, then a related concern. My comment is that that I am *for* the new definition of "URI". I agree with Roy completely when he said; "RF: I'm perfectly open to the notion of saying the URI includes "#frag". I keep getting shot down when I've tried in the past (since W3C not involved in the discussion). I don't want another IRI. I don't want more than one definition of a protocol element. I don't want developers to have to read 14 specs. I am open to new terms; need to do this this week. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0133 My concern is that the serious implications[1] of this change are not reflected anywhere in the current document. So my suggestion is two part. First, at the end of 1.1, I suggest adding wording such as this; "Though the definition of 'URI' is different than in RFC 2396, there remains significant practical differences between identifying a resource with a URI without a fragment identifer, versus using one with a fragment identifier. This is discussed in more detail in section 1.6." then in section 1.6, I would; - fix up the first paragraph to correspond to the new URI definition, which should just be to remove '(to form a URI reference)', I think - replace the second paragraph with; "Because of this difference, care should be taken when deciding whether or not to use a fragment identifier as part of the URI for a resource. In general, URIs with fragment identifiers are appropriate for those resources which are inextricably linked to a particular format, such as a circle or spline in a graphics format, or a hypertext anchor in HTML. Resources which are not so linked to formats SHOULD NOT use a fragment identifier in their URI." Thanks. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0253 MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 11:08:19 UTC