Re: ACTION-462: URI Fragments and HTTP redirects

On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 17:46 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 08.10.2010 15:51, Yves Lafon wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Yves Lafon wrote:
> >>
> >>> My position on this is that:
> >>> * Fragments in redirects have a real value and are already used.
> >>> * Fragment recombination can be hard and impossible in the general case
> >>> * We need to define a good story for applying a fragment to a
> >>> redirected URI
> >>> with a different fragment.
> >>
> >> And the proposal is:
> >> << When retrieving a resource A leads to a redirect to an URI B
> >> containing a fragment, any existing fragment on A MUST be dropped in
> >> favor of B's Fragment >>
> >>
> >> Original URI: A#Frag1
> >> -> GET A
> >> -> 3xx Location: B#frag2
> >> Final URI -> B#frag2
> > 
> > We probably should mention that this is what UAs actually *do*, and have 
> > been doing for a long time 
> > (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43>).
> 
> whereas, to the best of my knowledge this isn't what RDF tooling and 
> similar do if dereferencing http://example.org/A#frag1 then that's what 
> you'll be looking for in the content returned.
> 
> unsure if that adds anything to the debate ;)

In the RDF case of 303 redirects, as described in
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris
the original URI A#Frag1 denotes something, and the content retrieved
from the new URI B#frag2 is intended to *describe* what A#Frag1 denotes.
So I don't think there is a conflict with the above proposal.  That
proposal only affects how the content is *retrieved* -- not how the
retrieved content is used in describing the meaning of A#Frag1.  



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.