- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:31:33 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6610 --- Comment #2 from Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com> 2009-02-24 04:31:32 --- On first impression only, it looks to me like XPointer technology will work, if it's true a user can use XPointer to identify fragments that an author did not distinguish, but apparently XPointer is only for XML-related media types, which probably excludes most Web content. With HTML's prevalence, document authors generally strive for compatibility only with HTML and implicitly XHTML and may not take the time to divide a document into many fragments and identify them. Thus, in practice, it seems XPointer will usually be irrelevant. HTML can provide a rudimentary facility so that when an author does not signify fragments a reader can do so, even on old unfragmented documents, even without XML compatibility, and then the reader can tell a prospective reader how to get to the good part without any cooperation from the author. We often don't notice the problem because of the American practice of having many short pages rather than a few long pages and because popular fast-pacing means many people give a page only a minute or two to reveal the desired information before the seeker goes elsewhere. Someone who leaves usually does not thereafter ask someone else where that missing information was. They'll just say the info wasn't there. So they don't find the information and the person who told them it's there is probably judged to be less reliable, because they promised information that evidently wasn't there. An HTML facility needn't be as well-controlled as XPointer's. But there should be something. Thanks, including for the links. -- Nick -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 04:31:43 UTC