- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:38:46 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > What do you mean by "there's no good way to do a cross reference"? How > > > about > > > something like > > > > > > Section 5.1.2 of [RFC2616] > > > > > > (assuming you want Request-URI)? > > > > That wouldn't be a version-independent reference. > > > > (What HTML5 is referencing here is "the address of the resource from > > which the Request-URI was obtained", a term from RFC 2616's 14.36 > > Referer section. If it was an HTML spec, I could just like straight to > > the ID of the term, but at best I can give the section number and > > name, which is very brittle.) > > I assume that an ID is better than a section number, but is there really > *any* guarantee that IDs will survive revisions of W3C specs? No guarantee, but it's more likely than a section number. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 10:28:10 UTC