- 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