🧹 Clarification: `$dynamicAnchor` resource identification is confusing

[gregsdennis]

Specification section

Core, section "Defining location-independent identifiers"

What is unclear?

From line 1027 in the current core doc (as of writing)

... Normal [fragment
identifiers](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986#section-3.5) identify the
secondary resource (the subschema) while the rest of the IRI identifies the
primary resource (the schema resource). The fragment identifiers defined by
`$dynamicAnchor` are not normal fragment identifiers because they identify both
the primary resource and the secondary resource. See {{dynamic-ref}} for
details.

Proposal

I don't follow the logic of claiming that a dynamic anchor identifies a primary and secondary resource.

It seems to me that $anchor and $dynamicAnchor are just under disjoint referencing systems. I don't think we really need to explain why. It's this way because we define it to be.

Do you think this work might require an [Architectural Decision Record (ADR)]? (significant or noteworthy)

No

[gregsdennis]

I actually might just remove this as part of #1619 since they're not even fragments anymore.