> From [log in to unmask] Tue Jun 3 17:19 MET 2003
> X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
> X-RAL-Connect: <[log in to unmask] [130.238.162.227]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ori.rl.ac.uk id
> h53FJPS18946
> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:18:14 +0200
> From: Mikael Nilsson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: URI fragment IDs, MIME types and DCMI PURL redirects
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 16:50, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
>
> > > So, does it matter? I guess it at least creates semantic confusion :-).
> >
> > Does it? There are no triples - as far as i know - concerning these gadgets.
>
> As Pete said, not machine confusion but human confusion.
>
> > > I'd rather that we try to be very careful about the semantics of what we
> > > do. So why not propose the removal of the fragment id in the redirect?
> >
> > Would not hurt, but also would not help much: elements/1.1/title then would
> > redirect to elements/1.1/ - I would prefer not to have a redirect at all.
>
> I don't see this. How are the redirects circular?
Iiihhh, sorry...i meant to say: elements/1.1/title would still redirect to a URI, which
contains the full vocabulary.
rs
>
> /Mikael
> --
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
>
>
|