- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:36:24 -0400
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
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.
Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 17:36:55 UTC