- From: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
- Date: 2001年8月24日 18:23:03 +1200
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <B57613845A50D211864C0000F8FA5C2804207539@mars.otago.ac.nz>
Sean Palmer wrote: > I think you'll find that a) FragID syntax is independant of > URI scheme [...] I'm not convinced this is true. The definition of a fragment identifier says (at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt): When a URI reference is used to perform a retrieval action on the identified resource, the optional fragment identifier, separated from the URI by a crosshatch ("#") character, consists of additional reference information to be interpreted by the user agent after the retrieval action has been successfully completed. As such, it is not part of a URI, but is often used in conjunction with a URI. This specifically defines a fragment URI as information related to a retrieval action. Therefore one could argue that it doesn't make sense to have a fragment identifier if the URI scheme is intended to denote names with no implied retrieval mechanism. - Stephen
Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 02:21:23 UTC