Re: anchor parameter, was: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> It seems to me that we could go in a few directions regarding anchor;
> 1) get rid of it completely; any app that wants to use it can define it 
> as an extension (as they would for HTML and Atom, which don't have 
> dynamic scopes).
> 2) restrict it to ONLY fragment identifiers, and make them advisory 
> (i.e., a UA can choose to ignore them when displaying a link).
> 3) specify that it only has meaning when a particular application / 
> relation invokes its use (none to date).
> So far I'm hearing that #1 or #2 is probably the right approach. I don't 
> see how we can mandate it.
> Thoughts?
> ...

WRT 1) that seems like a bad idea. anchor="" allows making statements 
about sub resources, and there should be exactly one way to do that (so 
it can be dealt with in a generic parser).

Furthermore, what do you mean by "dynamic scope"?

Option 2) sounds ok, but I'm not sure why it would only be advisory?

BR, Julian

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 12:39:00 UTC