RE: Fragment identifiers (was: Re: introducing URIs)

Any individual resource has only a finite number of
fragments, even if it's N! where N is the number of
possible pieces that could be put together.
So it's still finite. Just big.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net] 
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 8:42 AM
> To: Larry Masinter; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Fragment identifiers (was: Re: introducing URIs)
> 
> 
> Larry Masinter wrote:
> > 
> > In the good old days when we only used URIs for HREFs
> > and other kinds of hyperlinking, it was safe to
> > think of a URI as identifying some kind of communication
> > endpoint (whether mailto:, telnet:, http:, ftp:, or
> > the like), and to use the interpretation of a fragment
> > identifier depended on the data type of the object
> > retrieved. 
> 
> Here's a new twist:
> 
>  * http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xframes-20020806/
> 
> home.xfm#frames(a=one.xhtml,b=two.xhtml,c=three.xhtml)
> 
> Somehow it bothers me that now fragment identifiers are not addressing
> parts of resources but configurations of multiple 
> resources...my mental
> model is that there are a finite (and thus countable) number of
> "fragments" in a representation (even though there may be an infinite
> number of addresses for each one). But now I see that XFrames
> representations can have an infinite number of fragments.
> -- 
> "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 Monday, 19 August 2002 11:56:17 UTC