- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:12:04 +0200
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi, (see also <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5744>). I'm a bit concerned about both how we treated the bugzilla bug above, and what the spec currently says. Contrary to what Ian claimed in the bug, HTML5 *does* define the fragment identifier syntax for text/html: "The the indicated part of the document is the one that the fragment identifier, if any, identifies. The semantics of the fragment identifier in terms of mapping it to a specific DOM Node is defined by the MIME type specification of the document's MIME Type (for example, the processing of fragment identifiers for XML MIME types is the responsibility of RFC3023). For HTML documents (and the text/html MIME type), the following processing model must be followed to determine what the indicated part of the document is. 1. Let fragid be the <fragment> part of the URI. [RFC3987] 2. If fragid is the empty string, then the indicated part of the document is the top of the document. 3. If there is an element in the DOM that has an ID exactly equal to fragid, then the first such element in tree order is the indicated part of the document; stop the algorithm here. 4. If there is an a element in the DOM that has a name attribute whose value is exactly equal to fragid, then the first such element in tree order is the indicated part of the document; stop the algorithm here. 5. Otherwise, there is no indicated part of the document." -- <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/history.html#the-indicated> So that part essentially updates Section 3 of RFC 2854 (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854#section-3>). Furthermore, HTML5 currently points to RFC3023 for fragment identifier semantics; the trouble is, that one doesn't define it at all: As of today, no established specifications define identifiers for XML media types. However, a working draft published by W3C, namely "XML Pointer Language (XPointer)", attempts to define fragment identifiers for text/xml and application/xml. The current specification for XPointer is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr. -- <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3023#section-5> What it should reference is RFC 3236. Also, the fragment identifier syntax currently is incompatible between text/html and application/xhtml+xml, shouldn't we fix that? Finally, as a general comment: fragment identifier syntax is an integral part of a document format specification. Hiding the fragid semantics in a section that defines navigation behavior seems to be the wrong approach to me. BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2008 14:12:47 UTC