- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:43:06 -0400
- To: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
- cc: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
In message <199609120154.SAA02538@cyprus.it.earthlink.net>, "David Perrell" wri
tes:
>There is some question as to whether URLs are 'intended' to reproduce
>state. Executables and server-side scripts can reproduce particular
>states via arguments appended to their URLs, and I've heard no
>complaint that this is bad behavior.
To my mind, yes: URL fragment identifiers are intended to capture
"state" or a "view" or the like.
>I propose an extension of the URL fragment specifier that will
>reproduce the state of frames for bookmarking or reference purposes.
Interesting.
> main.html##[][][doc3a.html#here#[][doc3a-2a.html#there#]]
>
>Current browsers I have tested ignore all after the second #, so a
>legitimate fragment following main.html would still be valid.
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure I've seen implementations that scan
from the right for the first #, and consider that to be the
split between the URL and the fragment identifier.
For example, here's a snippet from urlparse.py, part of the
python distribution (www.python.org):
if allow_framents and scheme in uses_fragment:
i = string.rfind(url, '#')
if i >= 0:
url, fragment = url[:i], url[i+1:]
Can you argue from the spec that this syntax is forwards-compatible
with old implementations?
I suspect that the syntax will have to avoid using more than one #
in order to really work.
Dan
Received on Sunday, 15 September 1996 11:43:11 UTC