W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: anchor parameter, was: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:05:29 +1000
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <906A6714-8727-4B10-AFB4-B6BAB19CACC7@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 20/08/2009, at 10:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> It seems to me that we could go in a few directions regarding anchor;
>> 1) get rid of it completely; any app that wants to use it can  
>> define it as an extension (as they would for HTML and Atom, which  
>> don't have dynamic scopes).
>> 2) restrict it to ONLY fragment identifiers, and make them advisory  
>> (i.e., a UA can choose to ignore them when displaying a link).
>> 3) specify that it only has meaning when a particular application /  
>> relation invokes its use (none to date).
>> So far I'm hearing that #1 or #2 is probably the right approach. I  
>> don't see how we can mandate it.
>> Thoughts?
>> ...
> WRT 1) that seems like a bad idea. anchor="" allows making  
> statements about sub resources, and there should be exactly one way  
> to do that (so it can be dealt with in a generic parser).
> Furthermore, what do you mean by "dynamic scope"?

I.e., when I put a link in an Atom document, it's context URL is  
static; either feel-level or entry-level.

> Option 2) sounds ok, but I'm not sure why it would only be advisory?

Advisory is perhaps not the right word.

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 05:06:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC