Friendly ping to get an answer here. Do my answers above address those points or is there anything else I can clarify?
Thanks, David On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:42 PM David Bokan <bo...@chromium.org> wrote: > [sending (again, sorry) from correct e-mail] > > I think Nick's replies > <https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2019-December/030998.html> > mostly > still apply, some updated answers to those questions. > > (1) We’re concerned about compatibility issues in a world where some >> browsers support this but not all. Aware browsers will strip `:~:`, but >> unaware browsers won’t. I saw that on the blink-dev ItS thread, it was >> mentioned that at least one site (webmd.com) totally breaks if any >> fragment ID is exposed to the page. This makes it difficult to create a >> link that uses this feature but which is safe in all browsers: >> - Since there is no feature detection mechanism, it’s hard for a webpage >> to know whether it should issue such a link. It would have to be based on >> UA string checks, which is regrettable. >> - A link meant for a supporting browser can end up in a non-supporting >> browser, at the very least by copy paste from the URL field, and perhaps >> through other features to share a link. >> > > We do have a feature detection > <https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/#feature-detection-and-future-apis> > mechanism > for this. > > On the latter point, this is true but we think implementing fragment > directive stripping (removing the part after and including `:~:`) is > trivial even if the UA doesn't wish to implement the text-fragment feature. > FWIW, we haven't seen or heard of another such example since. > > >> (2) The portions of this Community Group report that monkey patch other >> standards (HTML, URL and CSSOM View I think?) should be turned into PRs >> against those specifications. Monkeypatching other specs is not a good way >> to build specifications for the long term. >> > > We still need support from another vendor to start merging the monkey > patches into the real standards - if Apple's supportive I'd be happy to > start on that immediately. > > >> (3) Text fragment trumping a regular fragment ID seems a bit strange. The >> more natural semantic would be that the text search starts at the fragment, >> so if there are multiple matches it’s possible to scroll to a more specific >> one. It’s not clear why the fragment is instead entirely ignored. >> > > This was discussed in more detail in issue#75 > <https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/issues/75>; I agree with > Nick's point that the disambiguation syntax is already specific enough that > starting from a fragment isn't necessary. This also keeps us > mostly-compatible with the TextQuoteSelector > <https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#text-quote-selector> specified > in WebAnnotations which I think may have benefits for interaction with > annotation applications. > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:31 PM David Bokan <bo...@google.com> wrote: > >> I think Nick's replies >> <https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2019-December/030998.html> >> mostly still apply, some updated answers to those questions. >> >> (1) We’re concerned about compatibility issues in a world where some >>> browsers support this but not all. Aware browsers will strip `:~:`, but >>> unaware browsers won’t. I saw that on the blink-dev ItS thread, it was >>> mentioned that at least one site (webmd.com) totally breaks if any >>> fragment ID is exposed to the page. This makes it difficult to create a >>> link that uses this feature but which is safe in all browsers: >>> - Since there is no feature detection mechanism, it’s hard for a webpage >>> to know whether it should issue such a link. It would have to be based on >>> UA string checks, which is regrettable. >>> - A link meant for a supporting browser can end up in a non-supporting >>> browser, at the very least by copy paste from the URL field, and perhaps >>> through other features to share a link. >>> >> >> We do have a feature detection >> <https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/#feature-detection-and-future-apis> >> mechanism for this. >> >> On the latter point, this is true but we think implementing fragment >> directive stripping (removing the part after and including `:~:`) is >> trivial even if the UA doesn't wish to implement the text-fragment feature. >> FWIW, we haven't seen or heard of another such example since. >> >> >>> (2) The portions of this Community Group report that monkey patch other >>> standards (HTML, URL and CSSOM View I think?) should be turned into PRs >>> against those specifications. Monkeypatching other specs is not a good way >>> to build specifications for the long term. >>> >> >> We still need support from another vendor to start merging the monkey >> patches into the real standards - if Apple's supportive I'd be happy to >> start on that immediately. >> >> >>> (3) Text fragment trumping a regular fragment ID seems a bit strange. >>> The more natural semantic would be that the text search starts at the >>> fragment, so if there are multiple matches it’s possible to scroll to a >>> more specific one. It’s not clear why the fragment is instead entirely >>> ignored. >>> >> >> This was discussed in more detail in issue#75 >> <https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/issues/75>; I agree >> with Nick's point that the disambiguation syntax is already specific enough >> that starting from a fragment isn't necessary. This also keeps us >> mostly-compatible with the TextQuoteSelector >> <https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#text-quote-selector> specified >> in WebAnnotations which I think may have benefits for interaction with >> annotation applications. >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:42 PM Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 31, 2020, at 9:33 AM, David Bokan <bo...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> We've made lots of improvements to the spec, notably around issues >>> raised in Mozilla's standards-position >>> <https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/194>. >>> >>> >>> Do you think those improvements address Maciej’s concerns from last >>> December? Since you didn’t say that explicitly I was wondering what your >>> take on that was. >>> >>> — Darin >>> >>
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev