On Wed, Aug 08, 2001, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
On 08 Aug 2001 16:10:31 +0200, pcg@xxxxxxxx wrote:
the problem is that "#" is not nestable. and the file system layer might
want to use it itself.
Hmm? No. Fragments are interpreted by the UserAgent.
Exactly. As I wrote in my previous mail, the user agent must send the
request without the fragment identifier (anything after the first "#")
and then interpret it locally. As far as I know, there is nothing
that prevents the URI from having one or several "#" in the fragment
identifier (actually, section 2.4.3 of RFC 2396 is not really helpful
about that, but we can assume that it would be accepted). Take a look
at chapter 4 of RFC 2396 that defines the fragment identifiers:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
The other characters that Marc proposed (spaces or 8-bit characters)
are not valid in URIs and their behavior is undefined (they should be
url-encoded). Taking one image from a multi-image file matches very
well the concept of fragment identifier, so I think that "#" is the
best choice. Many people are already familiar with the meaning of
this character in a URI.
-Raphael
