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

[Fwd: [Bug 5744] Improved Fragment Identifiers]

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:04:11 -0700
Message-ID: <4852EEDB.2040200@berkeley.edu>
To: public-html@w3.org

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Bug 5744] Improved Fragment Identifiers
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:08:14 +0000
From: bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org
References: <bug-5744-1720@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

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


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

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




--- Comment #3 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2008-06-13 
20:08:14 ---
> that's correct, but kind of a tautology, because nowadays it's the only option
> that people have. whether people are dealing "fine" or not is kind of hard to
> say, but it is hard to build better tools (such as a browser providing the
> capability to create more specific links) when the spec does not support that
> because only @id elements can be used as fragment identifiers.

Historically, Web authors have found incredibly ingenious ways of working
around the slightest limitation when there's something they want to solve.
Plugins get developed (e.g. Flash video) to fill holes in the specs, people
develop massive widget libraries to get around the lack of native 
widgets, etc.
It is rare that a feature is needed without lots of people finding a 
workaround
and using it.


> 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?


>> Are user agents willing to actually implement this?
> i don't know

Getting browsers to be ok with implementing something is one of the first
things we have to do.


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.

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.

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!


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You reported the bug.

-- 
erik wilde   tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
        dret@berkeley.edu  -  http://dret.net/netdret
        UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 22:04:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:18 GMT