Re: [apps-discuss] Fun with URLs and regex

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-01-28 22:40, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2015-01-28 06:36, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> ... which brings about another interesting observation -- only http and https define fragments in their syntax; the other schemes do not.
>>> ...
>>
>> It's because you asked for that in <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013AprJun/0187.html>, and apparently were successful in convincing Roy.
>
> It is a very very very old debate regarding whether the fragment is part
> of a URI or something attached to the end of a URI, but that was resolved
> in RFC3986 (since the only thing that really matters here is that a fragment
> is going to be parsed as such regardless of the scheme).
>
> HTTP was merely updated to reflect what STD66 calls a URI.

I agree that the fragment is part of the URI; the question, as far as I 
understand, is whether the *scheme* definition should include the 
fragment, given the fact that you can attach a fragment to any URI anyway.

Best regards, Julian