Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 20 April 2013 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAA821F8CDD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JnXE9VHe7uK3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528CE21F8682 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTSEN-0007v2-UB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:29:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:29:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTSEN-0007v2-UB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UTSEL-0007uD-0d for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:29:05 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UTSEK-0004MJ-9Z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:29:04 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.29]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M6yIl-1Ui7KV0rKf-00wlgC for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:28:38 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2013 07:28:38 -0000
Received: from p5DD94B94.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.2.117]) [93.217.75.148] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 20 Apr 2013 09:28:38 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+J3n1qPeSJLl6zGSu4SGLdWpx8nA8dDQ+TgCk08n RVGjELEkNfMHOt
Message-ID: <517243A2.9000006@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:28:34 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <EBBA02BC-CAAF-4CE3-807F-85D87A9D30C8@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <EBBA02BC-CAAF-4CE3-807F-85D87A9D30C8@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.432, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UTSEK-0004MJ-9Z 6e15a001e896e68607d0df6a8d8c0423
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/517243A2.9000006@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17398
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2013-04-20 06:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> P1 sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 define the HTTP and HTTPS URI schemes without fragment identifiers.
>
> While it's true that HTTP sends these URIs without fragids "on the wire" in the request-target, the schemes *do* allow fragids pretty much everywhere else they're used (including some places in HTTP, e.g., the Location header).
>
> Given that this is going to be the definition for these URI schemes, and we already require that the fragid be omitted in the request-target, shouldn't the syntax allow a fragment identifier?

No.

Fragment identifiers are allowed for *any* URI scheme; the scheme 
definition doesn't need to include it.

Best regards, Julian