[iri] #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme definitions

[iri issue tracker]

#126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme
definitions

With respect to fragment identifiers, make sure that the following two
things are clear to people creating new schemes:

1) Fragment identifiers are part of URIs, and scheme definitions cannot
and MUST NOT disallow fragments on specific schemes (even if the usability
of a fragment id on the particular scheme being defined seems questionable
at the time the scheme definition is made).

2) Fragment identifiers are independent of schemes, depending on MIME
media types, and therefore scheme definitions cannot define anything about
fragment identifiers.

For background and details, please see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2012May/0011.html
--
----------------------+-----------------
Reporter: duerst@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: 4395bis | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
----------------------+-----------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/126>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Post by iri issue tracker
#126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme
definitions
With respect to fragment identifiers, make sure that the following two
1) Fragment identifiers are part of URIs, and scheme definitions cannot
and MUST NOT disallow fragments on specific schemes (even if the usability
of a fragment id on the particular scheme being defined seems questionable
at the time the scheme definition is made).

<hat type='individual'/>

Martin, do you think that URNs violate the URI spec?

Peter

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Post by iri issue tracker
#126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme
definitions
With respect to fragment identifiers, make sure that the following two
1) Fragment identifiers are part of URIs, and scheme definitions cannot
and MUST NOT disallow fragments on specific schemes (even if the usability
of a fragment id on the particular scheme being defined seems questionable
at the time the scheme definition is made).
2) Fragment identifiers are independent of schemes, depending on MIME
media types, and therefore scheme definitions cannot define anything about
fragment identifiers.

<hat type='individual'/>

More seriously, isn't this already covered by the following paragraph in
Section 1 of version -04?

A scheme definition cannot override the overall syntax for IRIs. For
example, this means that fragment identifiers (#) cannot be re-used
outside the generic syntax restrictions, and in particular scheme-
specific syntax cannot override the fragment identifier syntax
because it is generic.

Peter