Re: minutes of 2010-09-08 teleconference

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote:

>
> On 10 sep 2010, at 00:33, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote:
> >
> > On 9 sep 2010, at 15:27, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> >
> > > Can Ian provide a pointer to a paragraph in any of the HTML spec
> (including the HTML5 current draft) where it is written that a browser MUST
> jump to the section identified by a (resolvable) frag id for an HTML
> document? This is the standard behavior in all browsers, right? However, I
> cannot find where it has ever been written ... Why would this be different
> for media resources?
> > >
> > > It's here:
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#scroll-to-fragid
> > > It had to be included because the specification of what to do with
> fragment identifiers in URLs to text/html resources should have been in
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt, but isn't.
> >
> > Silvia,
> > that last sentence again seems to indicate that the html-folks assume
> that specifying the behaviour of fragments in an HTML context is the
> responsibility of whoever defines the URL format. This strikes me as
> counter-intuitive, as I've already explained in response to the mail about
> MF-semantics.
> >
> > As you're probably our closest link to the HTML group: could you explain
> the rationale behind this?
> >
> > I can only point to Ian's email. The idea is that a specification is not
> complete until the presentation behavious is also specified, since you can
> only call something a "standard" when applications (read: browsers) behave
> the same for the same feature.
> >
> > I would be more than happy to follow up on that thread if we agree that
> we don't want to integrate it into our spec. I would suggest though that we
> put a recommendation into our spec, in particular for the browser use cases
> - then get back to the HTML or WHATWG group and continue the discussion. I
> am not sure how much their opinion can be changed and possibly a sentence be
> added to that "scroll-to-fragid" section. We could, if we really wanted,
> propose some spec text for them to add into that section if that is what we
> prefer.
> >
> > So, probably the best course of action is: a more detailed recommendation
> in our spec and a proposed spec text to add to the HTML5 spec. Then a
> discussion.
>
> Let's do that. At least the first (more detailed recommendations) and
> whether we want to go all the way of suggesting text to the HTML5 group:
> let's see if anyone has the energy for that:-)
>
>
It may actually be a good thing to propose spec text for the HTML spec,
because it will then make it a necessity for the browser vendors to
implement support and they understand what is actually asked of them.

I'd be happy to have that discussion!

Cheers,
Silvia.