- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:11:09 -0700
- To: public-html@w3.org
-------- 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