- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:37:45 +0100
- To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 08.11.2010 03:46, Michael(tm) Smith wrote: > Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 2010-11-07 12:08 +0100: > >> Henri, >> >> to complete a conversation we had at TPAC...: I believe a subset of the >> anchors in the spec are auto-generated from the section titles. Thus, they >> are only stable as long as no new (sub-)sections with the same title get >> inserted (in which case numbers get appended as far as I recall). >> >> I think it would be good to spend the effort to actually give each >> subsection a robust anchor. > > The feature of generating IDs from section titles is one that Anolis > inherited from the CSS3 module postprocessor (which it was originally > designed to be a workalike for). I think that's been a really misguided > feature from the beginning and I'm really annoyed by its side effects. > > That said, I'm not annoyed to the point where I'd volunteer to be the one > to spend the effort to make stable IDs for all of the currently ID-less > sections. And unless somebody else does volunteer to spend the effort, it's > very unlikely that it's going to get done. Ack. I wrote this email mainly to explain that there's a *potential* problem here, and we shouldn't forget it when using fragment identifiers for things like test cases. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 07:45:03 UTC