On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 09:47, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
> 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.
No, on this issue we agree (for the most part; I like parts of it way
up to fragment identifiers and the issue of identity), so not so much
a heretic as a part of an exclusive club. :) BTW, My fellow Topic
Mapper Lars Marius has an excellent post about this, for those who are
lost in what the issue here is ;
http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/125.html
And do note the comment from Marc deGraauw with regards to those pesky
fragment identifiers ;
"Technically, what a hash URI identifies is dependent on the media
type. For HTML it typically is a point in a document, but Dan Connolly
considers changing this, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0205.html I sure
think this needs changing, but right now plenty people use hash URI's
for non-IR's in practice without much trouble."
Again, dependent on media-type. This is a field which is in motion,
and indeed confusing and not settled, no matter what RFC you feel like
sticking to.
regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 18:02:47 EST