Subject: Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

From: Foteos Macrides <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 17:46:49 -0500 (EST)

Sam Sun <[email-masked]> wrote:
>I didn't follow the history of the issue long enough, and don't quite
>understand why " [ "#" fragment ] " has to be defined in the URI/URL
>syntax.
>
>In the case of URL, The " [ "#" fragment ] " is only used or useful by some
>URL schemes. So my question is: is it acceptable to say that the fragment
>is scheme dependent, and don't bring it up in the URI definition?

	They are not "scheme dependent".  They are defined via application
conventions, presently for text/html documents, and should apply no matter
what scheme is used to retrieve such documents (i.e., not just http, although
HTTP/1.n has one of the clearest means of specifing the MIME type).  (An)
application convention(s) could, someday, be specified in relation to (a)
scheme(s).  Why impose a restriction against someday doing so for some URNs,
or for URNs that might return text/html documents such that the existing
conventions would apply?

				Fote

=========================================================================
 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 [email-masked]         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
=========================================================================