Subject: Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

From: "Sam Sun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:54:27 -0500

Hi, Roy,

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?

Regards,
Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding <[email-masked]>
To: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

>>If we attempted to remove any indication that the URI document did
>>anything more than specify the syntax of URIs and how that syntax
>>should be processed by URI-processing software, with any semantic
>>interpretation of the *meaning*, do you think we could get beyond
>>the current impasse?
>
>It depends on what would be removed.  I don't want to remove any
>information which has been proven necessary for people implementing
>parsers in URI-enabled applications.  That covers just about everything
>in the current document, since we already went through 12 iterations
>of removing things that were not needed and adding those that people
>have requested.
>
>If the URN group does not want fragments to be in the syntax, then
>a URN is not a URI.  I don't think there is even a tiny bit of logic
>to support the conclusion that a URN would not use fragments, but I
>can't stop people from shooting themselves in the foot.
>
>Stripping the URL specification such that it is as meaningless as the
>URN specification is not an option --- we know what is and is not
>generic syntax and semantics simply by looking at the parsers which
>implement these things in current practice.  If a URN is not a URI,
>then we should define the URL specification to represent the complete
>scope of locators, and simply ignore URN.
>
>....Roy
>

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:49:35 -0600

> is scheme dependent, and don't bring it up in the URI definition?

No; that is, to say that is not consistent with current
implementations, and I would find it unacceptable.
For example, consider:

	<p>...<a href="#foo">tail</a>

	...

	<p><a name="foo">head</a>

I can tell you where the link from tail goes (i.e. to head)
without knowing what URI scheme was used to access the document. So
can lots of implemented web clients (and maybe even some servers).

-- 
Dan
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/