[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Wayne Steele" <xmlmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
"Wayne Steele" <xmlmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
> Just found it:
>
> Chapter 4.1 of RFC 2396 says:
> <quote>
> ...
> 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.
>
> </quote>
>
> I believe the viewpoint that "the client determines what the fragment
> identifier really means" is at odds with the definition in RFC 2396.
Precisely -- the _server_ determines what the fragment identifier
_really means_. More in another response to this thread.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
