Re: Extended URL for frames
Carl Morris wrote:
> I have framed page at hello.com/index.html (non framed content in
> I have an option to go to my products page at
> hello.com/products/index.html, I might use
> hello.com/index.html##[products/index.html##[nwsamd.html]] to
> point to the litature for out nwsamd product... but this url won't
> any good for getting a non framed browser directly to the nwsamd.html
> file... That is what I see as the biggest problem...
If you need a link to nwsamd.html that is backward compatible you'll
have to forget about frames and simply link to that document. True with
or without the above syntax. Extending the syntax will not adversely
anyone with non-framed documents, anymore than frame-capable browsers
adversely affect the display of non-framed pages.
There is nothing in these proposed fragment extensions that invalidates
current syntax. Those who use the extensions will do so knowing there
are potential caveats, as do those who use frames in the first place.
One potential caveat comes because older browsers do a sloppy parse for
fragments and will parse off the fragment from the rightmost # instead
of the leftmost, leaving a chunk of the fragment attached to the URL
string. Most servers seem to handle this OK and return the requested
document. This is something that can be tested for compatibility and
considered before posting or referencing a URL with an extended
fragment. Anyone who publishes on the WWW has to consider compatibility
issues when using enhanced presentation.
A fragment is the proper place for this kind of extended information
because a fragment is specifically intended for client-side addressing
information and is supposed to be parsed from the URL string by the UA
before the URL is transmitted.