[iri] #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme definitions

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[iri] #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme definitions

iri issue tracker
#126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme
definitions

 With respect to fragment identifiers, make sure that the following two
 things are clear to people creating new schemes:

 1) Fragment identifiers are part of URIs, and scheme definitions cannot
 and MUST NOT disallow fragments on specific schemes (even if the usability
 of a fragment id on the particular scheme being defined seems questionable
 at the time the scheme definition is made).

 2) Fragment identifiers are independent of schemes, depending on MIME
 media types, and therefore scheme definitions cannot define anything about
 fragment identifiers.

 For background and details, please see:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2012May/0011.html

--
----------------------+-----------------
 Reporter:  duerst@…  |      Owner:
     Type:  defect    |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major     |  Milestone:
Component:  4395bis   |    Version:
 Severity:  -         |   Keywords:
----------------------+-----------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/126>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [iri] #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme definitions

Peter Saint-Andre-2
On 6/4/12 3:23 AM, iri issue tracker wrote:

> #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme
> definitions
>
>  With respect to fragment identifiers, make sure that the following two
>  things are clear to people creating new schemes:
>
>  1) Fragment identifiers are part of URIs, and scheme definitions cannot
>  and MUST NOT disallow fragments on specific schemes (even if the usability
>  of a fragment id on the particular scheme being defined seems questionable
>  at the time the scheme definition is made).

<hat type='individual'/>

Martin, do you think that URNs violate the URI spec?

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [iri] #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme definitions

Peter Saint-Andre-2
In reply to this post by iri issue tracker
On 6/4/12 3:23 AM, iri issue tracker wrote:

> #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme
> definitions
>
>  With respect to fragment identifiers, make sure that the following two
>  things are clear to people creating new schemes:
>
>  1) Fragment identifiers are part of URIs, and scheme definitions cannot
>  and MUST NOT disallow fragments on specific schemes (even if the usability
>  of a fragment id on the particular scheme being defined seems questionable
>  at the time the scheme definition is made).
>
>  2) Fragment identifiers are independent of schemes, depending on MIME
>  media types, and therefore scheme definitions cannot define anything about
>  fragment identifiers.

<hat type='individual'/>

More seriously, isn't this already covered by the following paragraph in
Section 1 of version -04?

   A scheme definition cannot override the overall syntax for IRIs.  For
   example, this means that fragment identifiers (#) cannot be re-used
   outside the generic syntax restrictions, and in particular scheme-
   specific syntax cannot override the fragment identifier syntax
   because it is generic.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/