Re: Proposition on advanced URL features (Request for comments)

Paul Burchard (
Tue, 28 Nov 95 12:25:43 -0500

James Whitescarver <> writes:
> 1. The use of ## for special anchors seems reasonable.

You mean "##H", "##P", "##/", etc., according to what was proposed.
This seems like a very ad hoc type declaration scheme.

> 6. If there are browser or server implimentor looking to
> add "selection" anchors we should define the
> conventions. Most current browsers, as far as I know, do
> not send the #anchorName in the HTTP GET or POST and will
> not, therefor, work as is with selection anchors.

That's good -- they should never be set to the server. Although
the URI spec is not fully clear on this point, I would strongly
object to muddying the current stable distinction between "?" as a
server-side resource specializer, and "#" as a client-side resource

Netscape is also proposing to make use of URL paramters (";" stuff)
for server-side byte-range extraction, which seems like a good

Paul Burchard <>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''