Re: anchor awareness (was Re: Richer & richer semantics?)
Subject: Re: anchor awareness (was Re: Richer & richer semantics?)
From: Ralph Ferris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:32:25 -0800
From email@example.com Sat Dec 28 13: 38:17 1996
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
>At 02:27 PM 12/23/96 -0800, Terry Allen wrote:
There is no requirement in RFC 1866 that A's NAME be unique within
>>the document, and in fact the absence of such a requirement could eventually
>>become a feature of HTML by facilitating n-ary links. And HTML's
>>definition of a name start character is exactly the RCS's.
>At 04:26 PM 12/27/96 -0900, Eliot Kimber wrote:
>Ugh. I didn't realize that. I can see the benefit, although I would think
>that 999 times out of a 1000 the intent will be to uniquely identify parts
>of HTML documents, especially since none of the Web browsers I know of
>support multi-object link ends (at least IE and Netscape don't appear to).
>There is generally a distinction between a "label" and a "name", where
>labels need not be unique (ignoring programming languages that use unique
>labels) and names, which are unique within some name space. I would argue
>that HTML has confused these two and seriously undermined the general
>concept of NAME with the NAME attribute of the A element.
Note that the Object Proposal does introduce unique IDs:
"OBJECT has the following attributes:
Used to define a document-wide identifier. This can be used for naming
positions within documents for use as destinations of hypertext links. An ID
attribute value is an SGML NAME token. NAME tokens are formed by an initial
letter followed by letters in the range a-z and A-Z (no accented
characters), digits, "-" and "." characters. It may also be used by the user
agent or objects in the document to find and communicate with other objects
embedded in the document."
Ralph E. Ferris
Project Manager, Electronic Publications
Fujitsu Software Corporation