- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:26:55 -0500
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] > > Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) writes: > > . . . > > Consider the URI http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me . The > > httpRange-14 decision says that if an HTTP GET of > > http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ returns a 2xx status, then > > http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ is an "information resource". > > Minor request for clarification -- does it matter for your > purposes that there currently _is_ no anchor named 'me' in > the HTML retrievable today from http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ ? No, for two reasons. First, in many typical cases the anchor *will* exist in the HTML. (Perhaps I used a bad example in showing Dan's URI.) Second, as far as I can tell from the WebArch, the meaning of the fragment identifier does not depend on its existence in the retrieved HTML representation. The dependency is on whether a *representation* exists when the primary resource is dereferenced, as explained at [1]. Reference 1. DBooth comment on missing fragid: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0183.html David Booth
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 17:27:38 UTC