• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:01:04 -0500
• In-reply-to: <00e301c16c00$ab5a34a0$0301a8c0@n...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <E163Qf2-0008CL-00@s...> <E163VKJ-0000ZK-00@s...> <00e301c16c00$ab5a34a0$0301a8c0@n...>

On Tuesday 13 November 2001 12:04 am, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> recall that only the URI part of a URI reference is sent to the HTTP
> server, it is entirely the job of the client to parse the fragment
> identifier.

Duh ohhh. Of course you're right.

That doesn't diminish the point that the server is obligated to send back 
something with approximately the same semantics. If it doesn't, all bets are 
off... 

• References:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be betterthanIDs...
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread