Personally, I've never linked the "httpRange-14" solution of doing fancy
stuff with fragment identifiers. It only leads to confusion in my mind.
But I'm kind of a heretic when it comes to this stuff.
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 09:15, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>> If RDF/linked data really DOES require that servers receive fragment
>> identifiers and determine request disposition based upon them, it would be a
>> big problem, since that conflicts with the operant RFC's for URI's and for
>> the HTTP protocol; and (consequently) with the behavior of many/most user
>> agents, servers, and middle ware components.
>>
>> I'm hoping it doesn't, and that Alex's opinion isn't shared widely in the
>> RDF/linked data community.
>>
>
> Well, this *is* a bigger problem than what we might at first think,
> because a *huge* part of the mechanics of RDF is dereferencing (see my
> other apology post), and most frameworks use proxies to harvest
> identities. So when this happens, the fragment identifier is hugely
> important and cannot be overlooked. It's gone from the client-side to
> the server-side, and I can only suspect that I got the virus through
> this notion. Hmm.
>
>
> Alex
>
Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 17:49:37 EST