- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:10:01 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > > ... > > But there is, I think, a fairly simple and appealing > architectural view in which http://example#foo > is in the same class as http://example, but > ../foo is in a very different class from > http://example#foo . Does this rendition of it appeal to you? What is the range of the URI REF dereference function? For example, the document says "In the case of a graphics format, a URI reference might designate a circle or spline.". Does it designate a "circle or spline" or circle _element_ or spline _element_. For instance, given two different elements I know that they are really different. I can infer distinctness just by virtue of the fact that XML elements have unique identity. But two splines might be "the same" in some SVG sense. Perhaps that is inferrable from the rules of SVG or perhaps it needs to be explicitly asserted. Either way, identity for an SVG abstraction is different than identity for an XML abstraction. Similarly, I would expect an SVG circle to have a "radius" property whereas an XML "circle element" could at best have an "attributes" property with a "radius" attribute information item in there. I think that it is dangerous to declare that the referent is the SVG abstraction and not the XML abstraction because how then do I talk about the XML element? The grove view is that by default we address elements and explicitly ASK to address beyond elements into other layers of abstractions. I think the Web needs to formalize its view. >... > > and if I have a resource identified > > by the URIRef http://example.com/someResource#otherResource, how do I > > reference a fragment of that resource (assuming it has one)? > > OK, assuming it has one, I can coin a new URI > > mid:2002-08-14.thismessage@w3.org#abc > (pretend that's the MID for this message) > > to refer to it. But we've lost the benefits of the HTTP URI scheme. If resources can have resources as fragments then it only makes sense that the syntax should have first-class support for it: http://example.com/someResource#otherResource#anotherResource Historically, fragments pointed at things that were NOT resources so there was no issue of recursion. -- "When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith -- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk." Congressman James Traficant.
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 14:12:37 UTC