- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 25 Jul 2002 17:12:38 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 21:27, Roy T. Fielding wrote: [... historical bits; I take no issue with these...] > I'll restate my most recent thinking on the subject from a prior > message to www-tag: > > Fragment identifiers are client-side indirect references, similar > to how server-driven negotiation in HTTP allows a server-side > indirect reference. The fragment identifier will, if the resource > provider has done it right, identify the same thing across multiple > representations. Even a resource mapping to static content will > have multiple representations over time -- they will all be > byte-equivalent, but not age-equivalent. Thus, if the resource > provider has done it right, a fragment identifier can be used to > consistently define a "thing" similar to a resource. We do not, > however, call that "thing" a resource I do. > because it simply is not > available on the WWW interface as a resource Yes it is; I can refer to it in the WWW context, and it's clear what I'm referring to. > -- the WWW does not > and never has treated the fragment identifier under the same rules > of processing as the resource identifier, since doing so would > interfere with the intent and result of client-side indirection. Along those lines, I don't see a clear distinction between http://example/#foo and mailto:foo@example. i.e. what we expect clients to do with identifiers has to do with more than just whether there's a # in there somewhere. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you in Montreal in August at Extreme Markup 2002?
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 18:12:21 UTC