# Re: Fragment ID;s

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Thu, 21 Jul 1994 23:56:57 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mitra: "Fragment ID;s"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Fragment ID;s"
- Next in thread: Simon E Spero: "Re: Fragment ID;s"
- Reply: Simon E Spero: "Re: Fragment ID;s"

    To: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us

    In-Reply-To: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us's message of Thu, 21 Jul 1994 23:47:59 -0700 <94Jul21.234802pdt.2764@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: Fragment ID;s

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

    Message-Id: <94Jul21.235707pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Thu, 21 Jul 1994 23:56:57 PDT

I know our messages probably crossed. In fact, in the most recent
draft, I left '#' as 'unsafe' rather than 'reserved'. However, it was
necessary to explain that '#' was used as a separator in a fragment
identifier in World-Wide Web, and that fragments were to be left
inside the optional <> delimiting brackets in free text.

This is treading a fine line of not specifying things that we're not
ready to specify (like 'fragment identifiers') and yet leaving room
for them, by explicitly disallowing URLs with unescaped #.

Many people have pointed out a desire to have some way of designating
fragments of non-HTML documents.

This stuff has been done a zillion different ways in the hypertext
community; I'm certainly uneasy reinventing a design without
re-looking at how previous hypertext systems handled links to images,
sound, etc.

- Next message: Mitra: "Fragment ID;s"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Fragment ID;s"
- Next in thread: Simon E Spero: "Re: Fragment ID;s"
- Reply: Simon E Spero: "Re: Fragment ID;s"