Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 20 April 2013 07:31 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 1788321F8E6C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, 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 p-HlFrs1cxZ1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3B321F8E4B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTSGC-0002ni-Oo for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:31:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:31:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTSGC-0002ni-Oo@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTSG9-0002n3-Mf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:30:57 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTSG4-0007bW-6n for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:30:57 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12BF0509B5; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:30:29 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <517243A2.9000006@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:30:25 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AED6FBF2-724F-424B-AFC2-06A5C73F8B14@mnot.net>
References: <EBBA02BC-CAAF-4CE3-807F-85D87A9D30C8@mnot.net> <517243A2.9000006@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.364, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTSG4-0007bW-6n 8fbd8bcd82f634afa7be611163ef53a1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/AED6FBF2-724F-424B-AFC2-06A5C73F8B14@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17399
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 20/04/2013, at 5:28 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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. Then why do we include query? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers Julian Reschke
- Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers Julian Reschke
- Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers Zhong Yu
- Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: HTTP(S) URIs and fragment identifiers Martin J. Dürst