- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:05:29 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20/08/2009, at 10:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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"? I.e., when I put a link in an Atom document, it's context URL is static; either feel-level or entry-level. > Option 2) sounds ok, but I'm not sure why it would only be advisory? Advisory is perhaps not the right word. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 05:06:11 UTC