# RFC 1808 use of # in 'base' example

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Sun, 7 Jan 1996 23:25:35 PST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "[izzy@aac.twg.com: mailto URLs]"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Proposed revision of 1738 and possibly 1808"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: RFC 1808 use of # in 'base' example

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <96Jan7.232537pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 23:25:35 PST

I'm told that mail to uri@bunyip.com from the end of November might
have been lost, so I'm re-sending from my mail archives.
================================================================
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 96 11:43:22 EST
To: connolly@beach.w3.org
CC: sjk@amazon.com, www-talk@w3.org,uri@bunyip.com
In-reply-to: "Daniel W. Connolly"'s message of Mon, 1 Jan 1996 11:17:19 -0800 <m0tWpjU-0002UgC@beach.w3.org>
Subject: Re: bug, or "feature"?
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

I should have read RFC 1808 more carefully! The presumption of

> Within an object with a well-defined base URL of
> Base: <URL:http://a/b/c/d;p?q#f>

makes no sense. 'An object' cannot have a Base with a fragment
identifier, since the fragment doesn't identify the object but the
fragment of an object. (That's the whole point of 'fragment'
identifiers, which is to give locations to parts of objects where the
parts don't have their own identifiers.)

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "[izzy@aac.twg.com: mailto URLs]"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Proposed revision of 1738 and possibly 1808"