RE: fragment identifiers and media types (was RE: XPointerconsidered incomprehensible)

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 13:59 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> > The meaning of *every* URI in the web is, practically,
> > connected to protocol messages involving that URI, and pretty
> > much all the Web protocols use MIME types somehow.
> Protocol messages may be used in the process of determining the meaning,
> but there is a difference between the meaning being determined by the
> content of the retrieved message versus the mere fact of retrieval.  In
> determining the meaning of , if a GET on
> returns a 200 OK and an HTML document, the mere
> fact of retrieval indicates that identifies a
> location within an HTML document.  It therefore cannot, for example,
> identify a person or a dog.

So don't publish an HTML document there if you want to use
it to identify a Dog.

Or interpret the HTML spec more liberally, and perhaps get it

Simon's point of order is well made. I don't see anything new
in what you're saying nor in what I'm saying. For anyone
reading this far who hasn't read the first umpteen iterations
of this production of "Groundhog Day"[1], some relevant open
TAG issues are:


Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 18:21:21 UTC