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 05:55:37 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K9w4X-0006Qv-8Q@wiggum.w3.org>

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





--- Comment #32 from Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>  2008-06-21 05:55:37 ---
(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 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.

  --Mike

[1] yes, fwiw, I'm choosing the word "URLs" here on purpose because I like it
better than URI and IRI and the are slightly more people in the outside world
who actually understand what it means -- compared to the significantly
insignificant number outside our little world who have any idea what a URI or
IRI is)


-- 
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 06:12:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 21 June 2008 06:12:30 GMT