I'm afraid I can find a buncha RFC's that disagree with you, Alex.
In general, clients do not send the fragment identifier to the server.
And several RFC's say they shouldn't. Some even say they aren't part of
a URI at all, although I realize that RDF treats them as such.
I guess the conclusion is just: Yes, this stuff is awfully confusing.
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:37, Ross Singer <rossfsinger_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For the record, I am not agreeing with Alexander: the fragment should
>> never be considered by the server and has nothing to do with conneg --
>>
>
> Your understanding of the fragment identifier is deeply flawed, I'm
> afraid. Of *course* the fragment should be considered by the server;
> that's the point. The server then decides what to do with the extra
> identifier, and in the case of HTML it does nothing different, but in
> the case of XML and RDF (and friends) they are *different* resources.
>
> A quick start;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier
>
>
>> I was just pointing out that a very major http agent (or, more
>> correctly, the library that many http clients are based on) behaves
>> incorrectly here.
>>
>
> No, I'm afraid *you* do. :)
>
>
>> What I'm saying is "don't assume your server will never see fragments".
>>
>
> You should be saying, "assume your server always see fragments."
>
>
>> It's an aside to the otherwise valid counter argument Jonathan makes
>> to Alexander.
>>
>
> It's worse than that. From that very same page ;
>
> "In RDF vocabularies, such as RDFS, OWL, or SKOS, fragment identifiers
> are used to identify resources in the same XML Namespace, but are not
> necessarily corresponding to a specific part of a document. For
> example http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader identifies the
> concept "broader" in SKOS Core vocabulary, but it does not refer to a
> specific part of the resource identified by
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core, a complete RDF file in which
> semantics of this specific concept is declared, along with other
> concepts in the same vocabulary."
>
> This is an explanation of a big misconception of how the fragments are
> meant to work. The only reason for this confusion (I suspect) is that
> with HTML-based content-types (which taught us all how "the web
> works") the servers don't react to it (creating the illusion that
> fragments "do nothing on the server side").
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 17:04:35 EST