fragment identifiers, Re: rfc2141bis [was: Re: A first cut at the Draft Charter ...]

On 28.04.2010 10:02, Alfred � wrote:
> ...
> The primary questions are related to whether or not the general URN
> syntax should allow *new* or *revised* URN namespace definitions to
> explicitly admit<question>  and/or<fragment>  parts, and whether or
> not the few delimiter characters admitted in the revised URI syntax
> <path>  components but not in RFC 2141 should be allowed (without
> percent-encoding) in the URN syntax.
 > ...

URNs are URIs, right? According to RFC 3986, the fragment identifier is 
entirely independent from the URI scheme:

"The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of 
representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary 
resource. The fragment's format and resolution is therefore dependent on 
the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved representation, even 
though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If 
no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are 
considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained. Fragment 
identifier semantics are independent of the URI scheme and thus cannot 
be redefined by scheme specifications." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.3.5.p.2>

So the question here is: what's the purpose of a fragment identifier in 
the absence of a representation?

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
urn <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn