22498 2013-06-27 20:46:05 +0000 Inconsistency in explanation of fragment ID resolving vs. anchor element specs 2013-07-01 17:39:04 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified All All CLOSED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 1 axl.coding eoconnor eoconnor mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking zcorpan public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 89976 0 axl.coding 2013-06-27 20:46:05 +0000 In www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/browsers.html#scroll-to-fragid we can read: "No decoded fragid: If there is an a element in the DOM that has a name attribute whose value is exactly equal to fragid (not decoded fragid), then the first such element in tree order is the indicated part of the document; stop the algorithm here." That is inconsistent with anchor specs at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/text-level-semantics.html#the-a-element which doesn't define a name attribute for anchor elements. 89982 1 zcorpan 2013-06-27 21:47:58 +0000 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/obsolete.html#attr-a-name 90027 2 axl.coding 2013-06-29 15:28:51 +0000 > ... to discourage certain features that are only allowed in very few circumstances ... These are generally old obsolete features that have no effect, and are allowed only to distinguish between likely mistakes ... and mere vestigial markup or unusual and discouraged practices ... This paragraph seems meaning that you should be killed if you use those features in a new HTML5 web you're building... In the other hand, the fragment resolving instructions seems being explaining a feature and encouraging you to use when you consider it matches your requirements or it fits well your design... If both informations are kept, I'd at least include a footnote on: > 5. If there is an element in the DOM that has an ID exactly equal to decoded fragid, then the first such element in tree order is the indicated part of the document; stop the algorithm here. clarifying that despite the fact that this works this way, this is a vestigial feature and developers are encouraged to avoid using it... What do you think? 90066 3 eoconnor 2013-07-01 16:55:43 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: No change. Rationale: The spec contains hundreds of user agent implementation requirements which relate to or are affected by obsolete features. It would seriously harm the readability of the spec to call out each of them. 90072 4 axl.coding 2013-07-01 17:39:04 +0000 Seems reasonable. Thank you Edward. Best regards.