Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089

["Roy T. Fielding" <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 18, 2019, at 12:31 AM, Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 2019/01/18 12:29, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> "Roy T. Fielding" <[e-mail]> writes:
>>> For example, HTTP can be used to dereference sip identifiers and the media
>>> type of the response does support fragment ids.
>> 
>> I must admit I'm not following your example.
> 
> I'm not familiar with sip, but I can easily imagine a http server 
> returning some metadata documents for some specific sip: URIs, the same 
> way it could for some specific mailto: URI.
> 
> The only thing you have to do to make such a server work is to set it up 
> so that it responds to requests of the form
> 
> GET mailto:[e-mail] HTTP/1.1
> 
> or some such. This is allowed by http, it's how proxying works. The 
> responses are not authoritative, but they have mime types and may work 
> with fragment identifiers.

Right, a proxy server can be configured so that any given full URI passed via
an HTTP request has a response that is effectively a hypertext client for a
service capable of resolving the given identifier and presenting something
useful to the user. What that might be is controlled by the proxy service, not
the identifier being used (i.e., the proxy server might only be for metadata,
or it might be a Skype proxy, or it might be a webrtc Rickroll, etc.).
Within that context, a fragment identifier can be defined by the media types
for processing hypertext even if it was not anticipated by the scheme.

Hence, fragment is an optional component of a URI reference, not part of
a URI scheme's definition.

....Roy