mirror/guile
mirror/guile
1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-06-10 14:00:21 +02:00
Code Activity

clarify uri fragment discussion

Browse source 
* doc/ref/web.texi (URIs): Clarify the discussion of URI fragments.
This commit is contained in:
Andy Wingo 2010-12-31 11:53:14 -05:00
parent d75a81b128
commit b3f9444892
1 changed files with 16 additions and 13 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

29
doc/ref/web.texi
View file

@ -175,23 +175,26 @@ URI := scheme ":" ["//" [userinfo "@@"] host [":" port]] path \
[ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
@end example
So, all URIs have a scheme and a path. Some URIs have a host, and some
of those have ports and userinfo. Any URI might have a query part or a
fragment.
For example, in the URI, @indicateurl{http://www.gnu.org/help/}, the
scheme is @code{http}, the host is @code{www.gnu.org}, the path is
@code{/help/}, and there is no userinfo, port, query, or path. All URIs
have a scheme and a path (though the path might be empty). Some URIs
have a host, and some of those have ports and userinfo. Any URI might
have a query part or a fragment.
Userinfo is something of an abstraction, as some legacy URI schemes
allowed userinfo of the form @code{@var{username}:@var{passwd}}.
Passwords don't belong in URIs, so the RFC does not want to condone
this, but neither can it say that what is before the @code{@@} sign is
just a username, so the RFC punts on the issue and calls it
allowed userinfo of the form @code{@var{username}:@var{passwd}}. But
since passwords do not belong in URIs, the RFC does not want to condone
this practice, so it calls anything before the @code{@@} sign
@dfn{userinfo}.
Also, strictly speaking, a URI with a fragment is a @dfn{URI
reference}. A fragment is typically not serialized when sending a URI
over the wire; that is, it is not part of the identifier of a resource.
It only identifies a part of a given resource. But it's useful to have
a field for it in the URI record itself, so we hope you will forgive the
inconsistency.
Properly speaking, a fragment is not part of a URI. For example, when a
web browser follows a link to @indicateurl{http://example.com/#foo}, it
sends a request for @indicateurl{http://example.com/}, then looks in the
resulting page for the fragment identified @code{foo} reference. A
fragment identifies a part of a resource, not the resource itself. But
it is useful to have a fragment field in the URI record itself, so we
hope you will forgive the inconsistency.
@example
(use-modules (web uri))