- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:29:22 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Tim Berners-Lee writes (and I know I vowed not to talk about this any
more @#X!):
>So, yes the "#" is magic in that it takes a string whose referent is
>defined by the HTTP spec to something whose referent is not
>defined by the HTTP spec. It is not magic in that the URI specs
>have always explained this.
>
>... the "#" can jump from network objects we all
>know and love into abstract space, which is more of a conceptual
>leap.
I just can't square that with this:
--------------------------------------
When a URI reference is used to perform a retrieval action on the
identified resource, the optional fragment identifier, separated from
the URI by a crosshatch ("#") character, consists of additional
reference information to be interpreted by the user agent after the
retrieval action has been successfully completed....
The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data
resulting from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used
in the reference. Therefore, the format and interpretation of
fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the
retrieval result. The character restrictions described in Section 2
for URI also apply to the fragment in a URI-reference. Individual
media types may define additional restrictions or structure within
the fragment for specifying different types of "partial views" that
can be identified within that media type.
A fragment identifier is only meaningful when a URI reference is
intended for retrieval and the result of that retrieval is a document
for which the identified fragment is consistently defined.
-------------------------------------------
[http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt , section 4.1]
>But would you have it any other way? Would you prevent someone
>from designing a language which talks about conceptual things?
No.
>Or would you prevent someone from putting documents written in
>that language on the web?
No, but I would insist that they refer to conceptual things using
approaches which make clear that they refer to conceptual things rather
than using syntax which appears to have been designed deliberately for
reference to concrete things.
>Or would you not want them to be able
>to use the URI system to identify globally the local identifiers used
>within that document?
The explicit connection between fragment identifiers and "the media type
[RFC 2046] of the retrieval result" (here and elsewhere, and not related
to the URI scheme) leaves me wondering what you could possibly mean by
that.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 21:29:25 UTC