- From: Křištof Želechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:00:37 +0200
Originally the name after the hash was a bookmark, not a fragment, because it would be defined on an anchor. I agree that until the new semantic makes it to the common knowledge using the name "fragment" for the purpose may be surprising for some developers. Best regards Chris -----Original Message----- From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:15 AM To: Maciej Stachowiak Cc: WHATWG Subject: Re: [whatwg] hashchange only dispatched in history traversal I kind of like onfragmentload but "fragment" seems to have connotations of bits of documents rather than of fragment identifiers. I don't think it's necessarily any clearer than "hash"... I don't know.
Received on Saturday, 11 August 2007 10:00:37 UTC