[Bug 5744] Improved Fragment Identifiers

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Bug 5744] Improved Fragment Identifiers
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:57:27 +0000
From: bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org
References: <bug-5744-1720@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5744


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

            What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
          Resolution|                            |NEEDSINFO




--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2008-06-13 
06:57:26 ---
What problem are we solving here? Is giving a fragment identifier into a
document really something that causes difficulties? Most people seem to deal
fine with just saying "Look at bla on this page" with a URI without a 
fragment
identifier, no?

It seems like if this was really a problem, people would have been doing 
things
to work around it, as they do with many other limitations of the Web 
platform,
but in this case I really see nobody working to index into pages better. 
What
evidence of the need is there?

Even if the problem exists, though, and is worth solving, why is 
XPointer not
good enough? We can easily redefine XPointer to work for HTML as well as 
XML,
since HTML5 defines text/html HTML in the same terms as XML-based HTML.

Are user agents willing to actually implement this?

Incidentally, I recommend reading:

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_the_spec.3F


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You reported the bug.

-- 
erik wilde   tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
        dret@berkeley.edu  -  http://dret.net/netdret
        UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)

Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 17:11:54 UTC