- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:14:24 -0700
On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:00 AM, K?i?tof ?elechovski wrote: > 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. When was it called a bookmark? I'm pretty sure it has been called a fragment identifier back to at least the late '90s. > > > Best regards > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: whatwg-bounces at 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 13:14:24 UTC