- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:16:13 +0200
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: nathan@webr3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On 13.10.2010 13:05, Jonathan Rees wrote: > ... > I was responding to Julian, therefore (1). You may have missed it but > Julian and the HTTP WG have been planning to specify, in 2616's > successor, that the first fragid has to be dropped. TimBL and I are > ... Actually, that the second overrides the first one (which is slightly different) > asking why, without getting a helpful answer. I'm willing to Speaking just for me, the most convincing argument is that this is what UAs actually have been doing for a very long time. > accommodate the WG if referential transparency is kept or architecture > is explicitly scrapped (my conversation with Yves). You and TimBL > take the hard line which is that we should just preserve the > prohibition in 2616 i.e. (2). Clarifying: there is no prohibition in 2616 *plus* accepted errata, which you really need to consider. What's up for discussion is what the spec should say about fragment recombination. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 11:17:00 UTC