On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Ronald J Kimball <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Ashley Pond V <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2011/3/7 Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]>: >>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:01:42 -0800, Ashley wrote: >>> >>>> What Ronald said + the #fragment is not passed along in the available >>>> ENV with some servers and setups. In these cases it doesn't exist as >>>> far as the backend is concerned. If you rely on it for dispatch, you >>>> may get burned. >>> >>> Uhm, the _browser_ handles fragments. Browsers don't send them to the >>> server _at all_. >> >> Nice. I didn't want to blanket it with a 100% of the time in all >> clients/servers this won't work because I was not sure. > > Fortunately, John never said he wanted the fragment to be passed back > to the server. You're saying "this won't work" to something that was > never proposed in the first place. >
Well, the original message was: >> How do I call uri_for_action and pass it the '#id' part? It's not an arg and >> it's not part of the query string. This is called the fragment identifier in >> the final URL. uri_for_action makes it implicit that he was seeking a server side use of the fragment. -Ashley _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
