On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 07:49:54PM +0200, Jens Lautenbacher <jtl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > so, who is the user agent, gimp or the gimp? the file system layer is part of
> > the gimp, for sure.
>
> Hello? The FS or a web or a ftp server is the "Server" conceptually.
> The UA (gimp) loads the whole Document (a file maybe containing
> multiple images) and interprets the fragment identifier locally --
i assumed that gimp does have a file-system layer. or otherwise who
handles "paths" that really are urls for example? will every plug-in
implement it's own http:// parsing+fetching? no, i guess gimp handles
this, the file system layer within gimp, specifically.
> The uri would only clash if there are UAs who already have some
> widely accepted meaning for a fragment id in e.g. an animated
actually, it's dependent on the media type. and my concerns are not about
compatibility to current browsers or servers but in the future. it would
be bad if gimp became successfull and would create/user uri's internally
that cnanot be parsed by other programs (not even like: "oh, i can't parse
this"). my suggestions make them unambigous.
> that they would use the FID much the same way and not for
> e.g. addressing a coordinate in the image (or any other random stupid
> thing one could think of)
well, xpointers are quite new and use their own "namespace", and i think
that's for a reason. gimp should also use it's own namespace.
yes, it might not make a difefrence in the future, but I expect the
difefernce between path and uri to go away completely in the future, and it's
betetr to be safe and sorry then.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
