W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2007

[whatwg] hashchange only dispatched in history traversal

From: Linus Upson <linus@google.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:30:31 -0700
Message-ID: <46be1c69.0f98600a.2ad7.3287@mx.google.com>
Fragment identifier seems to go back to at least 1994:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1630.txt

Linus
 

-----Original Message-----
From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:14 PM
To: K?i?tof ?elechovski
Cc: 'WHATWG'; 'Ian Hickson'
Subject: Re: [whatwg] hashchange only dispatched in history traversal


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 13:30:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:36 UTC