W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > September 2010

Re: minutes of 2010-09-08 teleconference

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:49:12 +0200
Cc: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
Message-Id: <F1FA6E8A-6BA4-4943-840A-7B4985AC3987@cwi.nl>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On 10 sep 2010, at 00:33, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote:
> 
> On 9 sep 2010, at 15:27, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> 
> > Can Ian provide a pointer to a paragraph in any of the HTML spec (including the HTML5 current draft) where it is written that a browser MUST jump to the section identified by a (resolvable) frag id for an HTML document? This is the standard behavior in all browsers, right? However, I cannot find where it has ever been written ... Why would this be different for media resources?
> >
> > It's here: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#scroll-to-fragid
> > It had to be included because the specification of what to do with fragment identifiers in URLs to text/html resources should have been in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt, but isn't.
> 
> Silvia,
> that last sentence again seems to indicate that the html-folks assume that specifying the behaviour of fragments in an HTML context is the responsibility of whoever defines the URL format. This strikes me as counter-intuitive, as I've already explained in response to the mail about MF-semantics.
> 
> As you're probably our closest link to the HTML group: could you explain the rationale behind this?
> 
> I can only point to Ian's email. The idea is that a specification is not complete until the presentation behavious is also specified, since you can only call something a "standard" when applications (read: browsers) behave the same for the same feature.
> 
> I would be more than happy to follow up on that thread if we agree that we don't want to integrate it into our spec. I would suggest though that we put a recommendation into our spec, in particular for the browser use cases - then get back to the HTML or WHATWG group and continue the discussion. I am not sure how much their opinion can be changed and possibly a sentence be added to that "scroll-to-fragid" section. We could, if we really wanted, propose some spec text for them to add into that section if that is what we prefer.
> 
> So, probably the best course of action is: a more detailed recommendation in our spec and a proposed spec text to add to the HTML5 spec. Then a discussion.

Let's do that. At least the first (more detailed recommendations) and whether we want to go all the way of suggesting text to the HTML5 group: let's see if anyone has the energy for that:-)
--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 08:49:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:39 GMT