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 22:54:40 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K7IAK-0004Xb-4x@wiggum.w3.org>

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


Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |NEEDSINFO




--- Comment #4 from Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>  2008-06-13 22:54:39 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > http://www.codedread.com/fxpointer/ is an attempt to do something about it
> Yeah, that's the kind of thing I mean. Does it have many users?

we'll see. the author is on the public-html list and will probably reply
soon...

> I guess I'm not convinced that there is a real need here, and that even if
> there is a need, that it's not already solved by XPointer. We shouldn't be
> reinventing the wheel just because we're not sure we like the current spec --
> we should work with that spec to make it better.

xpointer is a half-finished set of specs that was basically abandoned when the
xml linking working group disappeared. people seem to think xpointer is
something finished and readily available that could simply be reused - i don't
think this is the case.

> So in conclusion I recommend approaching the XPointer group and asking them to
> make the improvements you feel it needs, possibly simplifying it if necessary,
> or explicitly saying it should work with HTML if that isn't already the case.

there is no xpointer working group. the xml linking working group disappeared a
number of years ago.

> If you disagree with this conclusion, please either show what information I
> overlooked in reaching my conclusion, or, if you agree with the facts but
> disagree with the interpretation of the facts, raise this issue with one of our
> chairs. Thanks!

so one conclusion of yours was that you don't think something like that is
necessary. it is hard to argue against that. the other conclusion was that
maybe xpointer should be adopted. here i would say that (a) xpointer is a
half-ready set of specifications, and (b) it is not being developed anymore, so
if we want better fragment identification beyond @ids, we have to do it
ourselves.


-- 
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 22:55:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 June 2008 22:55:15 GMT