[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ERB: decision and conundrum [URLs]



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