Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 14:19:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Martin J. Duerst" <email@example.com> To: "E. Stephen Mack" <firstname.lastname@example.org> cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: Extending URL syntax for framesets? In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970729141503.245X-100000@enoshima> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, E. Stephen Mack wrote: > A key limitation with the use of frames (acknowledged by > the HTML 4.0 draft) is that currently URLs can only point > to an initial frameset and not a particular instance of > a frameset (after links have been followed and the contents > of different frames have changed). > I'm not sure if any separators are available that are not > already compromised or overloaded. For now, I'm going > to suggest the question mark even though it is fraught with > other meaning -- so that I overload the GET URL format > even further, but at least I know it's a valid URL syntax. > (I'm open to suggestion.) I think if anything, you better overload "#" than "?". The part after "?" is sent to the server, the part after "#" is not. In your case, it's the browser that has to disentangle the additional information and load the various frames. An additional advantage is that the syntaxt after "#" is not very abused yet, so that it is easier to introduce new conventions. Regards, Martin.