- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:04:02 -0800
- To: Kian-Tat Lim <ktl@ktlim.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Kian-Tat Lim wrote: > > If "equivalent" describes two URIs that identify the same > resource, how can "http://example.com/intro#chap1" and > "http://example.com/intro" not be considered equivalent > unless fragments (with representation-defined semantics, > not URI-defined semantics) are considered to be resources? > If fragments are indeed to be considered as resources, > explicit mention of such should be made in the document. Hm, in retrospect I think my draft is wrong. Given the semantics of fragments, it is perfectly reasonable to strip the fragment ID and do comparisons on just the URI part to see if you've cached it. On the other hand, RDF processors will always compare using fragments. So it needs rewriting to say that implementers need to be clear about whether they're comparing URIs or references. -Tim >
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 13:04:03 UTC