W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Fragment Identifiers and Agent Perspectives

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:39:59 -0700
Message-ID: <4E94634F.1020402@oracle.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
Jonathan:
I agree that we cannot/should not try to update 3986.
So, we should write a separate document clarifying frag id semantics and usage.
But form should this document take?  W3C Note, TAG Finding?

You said "Just for the record I don't particularly like Manu's suggestion, ..."
Not sure what you are disagreeing with.  The idea to amend 3986 or the
content of the message we want to send.

This issue has been kicking around for a long time.  Perhaps we could discuss
on Thursday and find a way forward.
All the best, Ashok

On 10/11/2011 7:58 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> I'm finding the indented response form unwieldy, just wanted to
> contribute a few points in reaction to various previous messages:
>
> - The discussion of 3986 derives from my saying the following to Manu:
> "Might need a revision to RFC 3986." I didn't say anything about who
> would do it. And those who know me know that I often drop outrageous
> suggestions just to get a reaction or make a point. It's clear that
> revising 3986 is almost certainly infeasible, and I meant it as much
> to push back on Manu's suggestion as anything else.
>
> Happily, Roy and Martin have clarified that it will not be necessary
> to update 3986. 3986 is so unclear, by design, that it would be hard
> to write a document addressing these issues that contradicted it.
> Therefore I suggest we drop the idea of revving 3986, except maybe as
> a thought experiment. Instead the focus should be on amending it
> externally, in the same way that AWWW did.
>
> - Manu says he can't point developers at a document that answers the
> questions that developers have. I absolutely agree. I think the TAG
> could produce or supervise such a document, but it's been difficult to
> find the manpower and determination needed to create it (it's
> essentially the same as the httpRange-14 work I've been struggling
> with). If anyone has any new ideas on how to advance this project let
> me know.
>
> - Just for the record I don't particularly like Manu's suggestion, and
> I would want to look hard for alternatives; but I wanted to make sure
> that the idea was written down and discussed here. My sense is that
> it's hard to keep those affected by the TAG's issues in dialog with us
> and I appreciate that Manu spoke up.
>
> Jonathan
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 15:40:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:40 UTC