rfc: remove "revision specs"

Denys Duchier duchier at ps.uni-sb.de
Wed Aug 31 14:57:33 BST 2005

Jan Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:58:22 +0300, Nir Soffer wrote:
>> 	The identified secondary resource may be some
>>       portion or subset of the primary resource, some view on 
>> representations of
>>       the primary resource, or some other resource defined or described 
>> by those
>>       representations.
>> Both last options are not possible when the fragment is not sent to the 
>> server.
> Make sure to notice, that web browsers are dealing with particular scheme
> -- http -- which could make particular choices, in this case the first
> option.

semi-tongue-in-cheek comment: I wonder if anyone thought of using the fragment
identifier to refer by id to a LINK element for a related resource.  I don't
think the HTML spec allows for that, but it's not that crazy... is it?

Dr. Denys Duchier - IRI & LIFL - CNRS, Lille, France
+33 (0)6 25 78 25 74    http://www.lifl.fr/~duchier/

More information about the bazaar mailing list