W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2008

[Bug 5744] Improved Fragment Identifiers

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:57:26 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K73Dy-0003XN-VI@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5744


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |NEEDSINFO




--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2008-06-13 06:57:26 ---
What problem are we solving here? Is giving a fragment identifier into a
document really something that causes difficulties? Most people seem to deal
fine with just saying "Look at bla on this page" with a URI without a fragment
identifier, no?

It seems like if this was really a problem, people would have been doing things
to work around it, as they do with many other limitations of the Web platform,
but in this case I really see nobody working to index into pages better. What
evidence of the need is there?

Even if the problem exists, though, and is worth solving, why is XPointer not
good enough? We can easily redefine XPointer to work for HTML as well as XML,
since HTML5 defines text/html HTML in the same terms as XML-based HTML.

Are user agents willing to actually implement this?

Incidentally, I recommend reading:
  
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_the_spec.3F


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 06:58:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 June 2008 06:58:01 GMT