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 11:08:27 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1KA0xH-0006z9-4n@wiggum.w3.org>

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





--- Comment #36 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  2008-06-21 11:08:26 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> ...
> there is no other spec for fragment identifiers. there is the old html4 spec,
> where it is an integral part of the spec. there is xpointer, which is
> unfinished and has been designed for xml. other than that, there is nothing
> that could be referenced. if it is decided that fragment identifers should be
> improved in html5, it must be described in html5. if they should stay as in
> html4, this also must be said in html5 (or its media type registration).
> ...

Actually, there are, both in IETF land (for text/html and
application/xhtml+xml), and in W3C land:

- RFC 2854 currently defines fragment identifiers for text/html, based on the
HTML 4.01 spec 

- RFC 3236 currently defines fragment identifiers for application/xhtml+xml,
based on RFC 3023 (XML media types)

- There's also NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801 which probably should be updated
when HTML5 is ready

(<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5744#c22>)

The question is whether it's in scope for us to update these specs (and yes, I
think it 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 11:09:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 21 June 2008 11:09:02 GMT