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

[Bug 5744] Improved Fragment Identifiers

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:06:11 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K9wEl-0007Oz-Kk@wiggum.w3.org>


--- Comment #34 from Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>  2008-06-21 06:06:11 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> (In reply to comment #31)
> > It's not clear to me at least
> > what value there would be in the spec trying to say anything more about what
> > fragment IDs actually are than what is said about them in RFC 3987.
> To be clear and more precise, what I meant here is that I don't see that there
> would be any value in the HTML5 draft saying anything more about existing *RFC
> 3987* fragment IDs than what is said bout them in RFC 3987 itself.

i am confused now. rfc 3987 just defines a syntax for uri/iri, nothing else.
fragment identifier semantics are defined per media type.

> I would personally like to see better fragment IDs than the rudely simplistic
> ones that RFC 3987 defines and that we have all been limited to for all these
> years. In particular, the value proposition for being able to have URLs[1] with
> fragment IDs that can point to parts of text/plain documents seems *blazingly
> obvious* to me. But I'm not the one who needs to be convinced, because I'm not
> the one who's going to need to implement it.

plain text fragment identifiers: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5147

there once, a long time ago, was an attempt to define a generic syntax for
fragment identifiers, are you referring to that idea? the idea was that if
there was a common framework for fragment identifiers, they (or parts of them)
could be reused across media types. nice idea, but it went nowhere, because it
was impossible to predict what kind of mechanism different media types would
like to have as fragment identification. finding that draft would require
advanced googling, it is pretty old and did not live very long.... long live
google! here it is:


but like i said, this died very quickly, it was shouted down from all corners,
if i recall correctly. i liked the idea, but had to agree that it probably
would have been hard to actually define a useful syntax.

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 Saturday, 21 June 2008 06:06:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:34 UTC