Subject: TAG resolution on redirection with fragment identifiers

From: Noah Mendelsohn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:49:04 -0500

The TAG has recently considered some questions relating to the case where a 
Web client dereferences a link of the form (A#B), sends the request as 
usual with a Request-URI of "A", and the HTTP response contains:

* A status code of 30x (redirection)
* A Location header with a fragment identifier (e.g. C#D)

Thus, both the original reference and the returned location are to what RFC 
3986 [1] calls "Secondary Resources".  On it's teleconference of 18 
November 2010, the TAG reached the following conclusion:

===
RESOLVED: The TAG endorses the health warning "If you deploy a 30x 
Location: C#D, then be aware that anyone who creates a URI A#B, might be 
inconvenienced (since there are no fragment combination rules)."
===

I was assigned TAG ACTION-503: on - Noah Mendelsohn - Publicize to www-tag 
[email-masked] & chairs health warning on secondary resourc 
redirection as resolved on 18 Nov 2010 - Due: 2010-11-25 - OPEN

This note is in fulfillment of that action.  (I will send separately to 
[email-masked], to avoid cross posting to public and member-only lists).

Thank you very much

Noah

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt