- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:19:52 +0300
- To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Pat Hayes said: > > Other examples abound, > > eghttp://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/ngc1068/index.html is in > > clearly about a galaxy containing a supermassive black hole, which is > > also not something one would expect to find as part of an networked > > information system, given the likely physical constraints on network > > architecture. Dan Connoly said: > I think that particular identifier refers to a document about > a galaxy, not the galaxy itself; if you want to refer to > the galaxy itself, you should use a URI with a # in it. -- I wish folks would stop suggesting this approach for several reasons: 1. Folks are already using URIs without fragIds to denote such resources and such usage is already prolific enough that an attempt to mandate its practice as "bad" is simply not going to succeed. 2. There are numerous practical problems with fragIds when it comes to implementing SW functionality on top of Web APIs since many clients and APIs strip off the fragID in various ways thus loosing the actual denotation of the resource in question by ending up with an entirely different URI (the base URI). 3. It is IMO contrary to the best practice of "don't peek inside URIs". The structure of the URI should have no relation to its semantics, including the presence or absence of a fragId. 4. It introduces ambiguity when one wishes to actually refer to a structural/physical fragment of a resource such as an RDF/XML instance rather than some other resource denoted by the URIref with fragId. URIrefs with fragIds are an intuitive way to refer to structural components of an XML instance. The usage you propose precludes doing that in a convenient manner by usurping the meaning of any fragId to denote something other than the structural component it identifies in the instance. It would be nice to see this idea let go. > [folks with other opinions on httpRange-14 disagree, > I believe.] Let us hope they end up a majority. Regards, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 06:20:04 UTC