Lists Home |
Date Index |
Just found it:
Chapter 4.1 of RFC 2396 says:
The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data resulting
from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used in the
reference. Therefore, the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers
is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the retrieval result. The
character restrictions described in Section 2 for URI also apply to the
fragment in a URI-reference. Individual media types may define additional
restrictions or structure within the fragment for specifying different types
of "partial views" that can be identified within that media type.
A fragment identifier is only meaningful when a URI reference is intended
for retrieval and the result of that retrieval is a document for which the
identified fragment is consistently defined.
I believe the viewpoint that "the client determines what the fragment
identifier really means" is at odds with the definition in RFC 2396.
>From: "Wayne Steele" <email@example.com>
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
>Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XPointer and XML Schema
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:49:02 -0700
>Yes, yes, locality is good. Normally, I don't care what some server thinks,
>I worry about what my processes and users think about the data.
>But isn't XPointer a different case?
>My understanding of XPointer's mission is "to define the fragment
>identifiers for the text/xml mime-type".
>If we want to preserve the universality of URLs, there should be a
>consistent meaning for the fragment identifiers. Giving them a different
>meaning based on what XML Schema is used reminds me of the earlier proposal
>that namespace/prefix bindings depended on the context of the reference. I
>think this idea should be rejected for the same reasons.
>Yes, I know how it works with DTDs. But users of documents processes them
>using the DTD specified by (or even internal to) the instance. They don't
>load up a random DTD of their choice and use it instead - if they do they
>expect certain things to break, such as fragment identifiers.
>>We could do that, but it would be wrong (in my view). Wrong because
>>it violates locality -- a barename link with name XYZZY is to what the
>>_target_ establishes as is its XYZZY ID, not the source. Think of how
>>it works with DTDs, and a complex case with external entities and
>>catalogues and proxies and . . . There's nothing I can do at the
>>source end to determine what the target is going to establish as the
>>referent under those circumstances. So I don't think there should be
>>for the Schema case either. The _user_ does that by setting up the
>>processing environment, in either case.
>Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: