Re: Media typing of fragments

On 5/4/2012 5:42 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I don't think so. They clearly state that this is "a further requirement" that they are putting on URI fragments. In other words, they're defining the way in which URI fragments are processed within the confines of their specification. I see nothing wrong with the restriction they make as it applies to the specific fragment processing that they have devised.

That reading is not at all clear to me. The text in question follows a 
paragraph that explains the difference between query (?) and fragment (#) 
syntax. In context, the quote is:

"The main difference between a URI query and a URI fragment is that a URI 
query produces a new resource, while a URI fragment provides a secondary 
resource that has a relationship to the primary resource. URI fragments are 
resolved from the primary resource without another retrieval action. This 
means that a user agent should be capable to resolve a URI fragment on a 
resource it has already received without having to fetch more data from the 
server.

A further requirement put on a URI fragment is that the media type of the 
retrieved fragment should be the same as the media type of the primary 
resource. "

Certainly that first paragraph is paraphrasing RFC 3986, not providing a 
narrowed view relating to media fragments. So, if what's intended is the 
narrower reading you suggest, I think it needs to be worded much more 
clearly. In context, it appears to be a tutorial on Web architecture, as 
the first paragraph seems to be in any case.

Noah

Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 13:51:20 UTC