- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:41:17 +0100
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> I believe that a namespace is a resource, not a document > fragment, and as such, should be identified by a URI, not > a URI reference. Whilst your wording there is unclear, I hope you're not stating that URIs plus fragments necessarily identify some subset of resources or - worse still - some series of characters/bytes. RFC 2396 is quite clear (or quite vague depending on how you look at it) by stating:- [[[ [...] the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the retrieval result. ]]] - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt As far as I can discern from the RFC, it does not give any constraints as to the interpretation of the fragment identifiers given above. It defers the interpretation (and therefore the constraints upon the semantics) of the fragment and that which it identifies to the media type specification. Practically, rdf:ID would be a total disaster if chunks of documents were the only things that could be referenced by fragment identifers. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 09:41:24 UTC