# Re: Fragment ID;s

Mark P. McCahill (mpm@boombox.micro.umn.edu)
Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:21:29 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Emtage: "Draft Agenda"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Fragment ID;s"
- Maybe in reply to: Mitra: "Fragment ID;s"

    Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:21:29 -0500

    Message-Id: <199407221421.JAA06941@boombox.micro.umn.edu>

    From: "Mark P. McCahill" <mpm@boombox.micro.umn.edu>

    To: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Fragment ID;s

In message <Pine.3.89.9407211808.A10354-0100000@pandora.sf.ca.us> Mitra writes:
> Larry suggested putting "#" back into URLs as a fragment ID.
>
> This was brought up and shot down at one of the WG meetings (by my
> possibly flawed memory).
>

That's what I remember, too.

> ...
>
> 3) If we want a fragment id, then lets have a decent one, I made one such
> proposal at the Washington IETF - based on some of the discussion in
> early Z39.50 meetings, but it was basically bumped off of the discussion
> when it was decided not to put anything else inside URLs. A decent
> fragment id, needs to be able to express such things as bytes 1000-2000
> or the last page, or the last frame, etc. IMHO the WWW implementation of
> framgents is a bit of really poor non-generic design that certainly shouldnt
> get grandfathered as standard, even if we make attempts at accomodating its
> usage.
>

I agree with Mitra on this. I'd also like to point out that we are trying to
simply clean up the current document a bit and this may not be the optimal time
to open large new cans of worms and design issues... simply producing a decent
URL document is turning out to be hard enough.

Mark P. McCahill gopherspace engineer
mpm@boombox.micro.umn.edu University of Minnesota
612 625 1300 612 625 6817 (fax)

- Next message: Alan Emtage: "Draft Agenda"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Fragment ID;s"
- Maybe in reply to: Mitra: "Fragment ID;s"