- From: Murray Maloney <murray@sq.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 15:56:22 -0500
- To: paul@arbortext.com (Paul Grosso)
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 01:58 PM 18-03-97 CST, Paul Grosso wrote: >> From: lee@sq.com >> >> On the subject of fragment IDs, there seems to be some confusion. >> >> There are two kinds of fragments. [...] >> Please don't confuse them. >> [...] >Please don't do this! Let's not add confusion by trying to rename >something that's had a perfectly good name for some time now. > >What TR9601 deals with are fragments, let's not try to start calling >them chunks now. > >It seems to me that, of the two uses of the word "fragment," the one >referring to a named region of the document is misnamed. How about >"named region"? Like it or not, the name of the "#foo" thing at the end of a URL is called a "fragment identifier". There is really nothing wrong with the name, as it is an identifier for a fragment within an HTML document. You can futz about with names all you like. The fragment identifier is entrenched in Web-speak. There is no getting around that. Trying to rename it will only create confusion for the large base of HTML users. Just my humble opinion, Murray
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 1997 15:56:50 UTC