- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:56:10 -0700
- To: "Sam L'ecuyer" <sam@cateches.is>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM, <sam@cateches.is> wrote: >> Requests I've heard before I looked at :local-link(): >> >> * Simple equality >> * Ignore fragment >> * Ignore fragment and query >> * Further normalization (browsers don't normalize as much as they >> could during parsing, but maybe this should be an operation to modify >> the URL object rather than a comparison option) > > What about links that point to a null URL with a hash? ie <a href="#back-to-top"> > Obviously this is a local link, but it doesn't really fit into the > host/path/query segmentation that's defined with the :local-link([0|1|2...]) definition[1]. > Perhaps a :local-link(hash) keyword would be appropriate so that we could select links within the page? That's what :local-link (without the ()) is for - it selects links within the same page. That is, links where the url is identical, ignoring the hash. >> However, :local-link() also ignores port/scheme which is not typical. > > Isn't it perfectly reasonable to expect that a different scheme/port is running an entirely different application? Yes, which is why Anne says that we should include port/scheme in the comparison. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 19:56:56 UTC