W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2009

[whatwg] <a onlyreplace>

From: Nelson Menezes <flying.mushroom@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:02:04 +0200
Message-ID: <a440ea080910180302t495d008ekb5b94c0e553adb6b@mail.gmail.com>
The cruft in the hash is needed so that we know what IDs to refresh
when navigating back (which could be taken away into a JS URL-to-IDs
map), and to detect a change if the same URL is accessed several times
(that's probably overkill). Still, the point was to show it can work
today; it really isn't an elegant solution as-is :)

Nelson Menezes

2009/10/18 Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc>:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Nelson Menezes
> <flying.mushroom at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/10/17 Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc>:
>>> In fact, you don't even need to use pushState. For now this can be
>>> faked using onhashchange and fragment identifier tricks. It's
>>> certainly not as elegant as pushState (that is, after all, why
>>> pushState was added), but it's something that can be tried today.
>> Well, here's a badly-hacked-together solution that emulates this behaviour...
>> I think it'll be helpful even if it only gets used in a JS library as
>> you mention (change the attribute to a classname then). Still, it can
>> be made to work with today's browsers:
>> http://test.fittopage.org/page1.php
> Yay, sweet! But why so much cruft in the hash? Also, going back to the
> original page (where there is no hash) doesn't seem to work (at least
> in Firefox trunk nightlies).
> / Jonas
Received on Sunday, 18 October 2009 03:02:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:18 UTC