- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:04:11 -0700
- To: public-html@w3.org
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Bug 5744] Improved Fragment Identifiers Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:08:14 +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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEEDSINFO |WONTFIX --- Comment #3 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2008-06-13 20:08:14 --- > that's correct, but kind of a tautology, because nowadays it's the only option > that people have. whether people are dealing "fine" or not is kind of hard to > say, but it is hard to build better tools (such as a browser providing the > capability to create more specific links) when the spec does not support that > because only @id elements can be used as fragment identifiers. Historically, Web authors have found incredibly ingenious ways of working around the slightest limitation when there's something they want to solve. Plugins get developed (e.g. Flash video) to fill holes in the specs, people develop massive widget libraries to get around the lack of native widgets, etc. It is rare that a feature is needed without lots of people finding a workaround and using it. > http://www.codedread.com/fxpointer/ is an attempt to do something about it Yeah, that's the kind of thing I mean. Does it have many users? >> Are user agents willing to actually implement this? > i don't know Getting browsers to be ok with implementing something is one of the first things we have to do. I guess I'm not convinced that there is a real need here, and that even if there is a need, that it's not already solved by XPointer. We shouldn't be reinventing the wheel just because we're not sure we like the current spec -- we should work with that spec to make it better. So in conclusion I recommend approaching the XPointer group and asking them to make the improvements you feel it needs, possibly simplifying it if necessary, or explicitly saying it should work with HTML if that isn't already the case. If you disagree with this conclusion, please either show what information I overlooked in reaching my conclusion, or, if you agree with the facts but disagree with the interpretation of the facts, raise this issue with one of our chairs. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 22:04:54 UTC