W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Fwd: Re: Document fragment vocabulary

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:38:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4E4A56B0.2070401@berkeley.edu>
To: uri@w3.org
CC: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

On 2011-08-16 10:36 , Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
> RFC5147 provides integrity checks, but there is no proposal that
> produces robust fragment IDs. e.g. something that works on the context
> and not on line or position. A change in the document on position 0
> might render all fragment ids obsolete. E.g. "#range=(574,585)" would
> not be valid any more, if one character was inserted at the beginning of
> the document, changing the index.

being one of the authors of this RFC, i'd like to point out that the 
initial ideas were quite a bit more complicated and included features 
similar to what you are looking for. however, during the process of 
getting community support, it became clear that the preference of most 
people was to have simpler and easier to implement fragment identifier 
features. this does make them more brittle, but things on the web can 
break, and even a more complicated feature set would only have made them 
less likely to break. in the end, i think it was good that the final RFC 
ended up being simple and easy to understand and implement, but it 
definitely may not be enough for your use cases.

we're still working on the CSV version, and any feedback about this is 
highly welcome, and this list is exactly the right place for this. 
here's our announcement about the CSV fragid draft:


kind regards,

erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-6432253 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:38:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:15 UTC