And since you cited wikipedia (cringe), might as well use that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier#Processing
"The fragment identifier functions differently than the rest of the URI:
namely, its processing is exclusively client-side with no participation
from the server."
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:03:26 -0500, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu>
wrote:
> 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 - 17:14:07 EST