W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-81 (resource vs representation)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:38:46 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910121038310.3716@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > What do you mean by "there's no good way to do a cross reference"? How
> > > about
> > > something like
> > > 
> > >  Section 5.1.2 of [RFC2616]
> > > 
> > > (assuming you want Request-URI)?
> > 
> > That wouldn't be a version-independent reference.
> > 
> > (What HTML5 is referencing here is "the address of the resource from 
> > which the Request-URI was obtained", a term from RFC 2616's 14.36 
> > Referer section. If it was an HTML spec, I could just like straight to 
> > the ID of the term, but at best I can give the section number and 
> > name, which is very brittle.)
> 
> I assume that an ID is better than a section number, but is there really 
> *any* guarantee that IDs will survive revisions of W3C specs?

No guarantee, but it's more likely than a section number.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 10:28:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:09 UTC