- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:14:45 +0200
- To: www-tag@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, 10:22:14 AM, Roy wrote: >>> One issue is that if the jar contained say an xml file one might want >>> to point to a fragment of that file >>> http://www.foo.com/bar/baz.jar#jar(/COM/foo/Quux.xml#foo) RTF> There is no situation or context in which it is appropriate for RTF> balanced parentheses to appear as a suggested URI syntax. I should have said URI reference, perhps, but I understood that URI now includes URI reference. Balanced parentheses are the foundation of the XPointer framework http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/ so it semed that, for fragment schemes, they were the correct choice. RTF> It is the wrong choice in all circumstances. Please elaborate, since you seem to be saying that several W3C Recs are wrong. RTF> Since this example is an http URI, it can easily be RTF> http://www.foo.com/bar/baz.jar/COM/foo/Quux.xml#foo RTF> HTTP servers do not contain files. What would the semantics of that be? It seems to request that one particular resource be served (which happens to be part of a jar file) thus, just that one file would be extracted and returned. That would not work. The use case here is to retrieve the entire jar and to then point to the class to be executed. Execution requires the other files in the jar, too. So its more like a fragment. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 05:15:16 UTC