- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:09:01 +0200
- To: "Erik Wilde" <dret@berkeley.edu>, public-html@w3.org
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 02:21:47 +0200, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote: > about two weeks ago, i posted a short message about the idea to improve > fragment identifiers in html; the original message can be found here: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008May/0509.html > > basically, i proposed to extend html's fragment identification method by > allowing to identify fragments without an @id. > > nobody replied, so apparently this idea is not met with great > enthusiasm. however, i still think this could be useful, and i would be > grateful to get some feedback about this idea. most importantly, i am > wondering whether people think this is a bad idea and should not be > done, or whether people think this simply would not be implemented > and/or useful. so i don't expect anybody to suddenly become enthusiastic > about this idea, but just hearing some of the reasons for the lack of > enthusiasm would be interesting as well. To me it seems like a solution looking for a problem. If I want to point someone to a quote in a document I typically extract the quote (copy and paste) and hand that over plus the URL so they can figure out the context (using inline find or manual scanning). This works quite well and even has the advantage that you don't necessarily need to retrieve the resource. Besides that, apart from dated W3C TR/ URLs resources on the Web frequently change so a simple pointer to the third paragraph in a document becomes very ambigious over time. (To be fair, this is also true to a certain extent for URLs and the fragment identifiers we have today, but less so, I think.) -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2008 09:09:22 UTC