On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Aryeh Gregor<[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Ian Hickson<[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't think alternative style sheets are evil; in fact, they seem to be >> quite within the architecture of the Web. Surely you don't think that, >> e.g., GMail is evil for having the same URL for whether your contact list >> is hidden or expanded. > > I can't give other people links to my Gmail URLs anyway, since they > don't know my password (I hope). On the other hand, if I'm reading > the author version of HTML 5 and want to quote a portion of it to > someone with a link, it would be rather confusing if they said "Hey, > that's not what it says!" Publicly-viewable *documents* -- not > necessarily applications which may have no stable state anyway -- > whose *contents* -- not UI -- differ as dramatically as this should > have different URLs. That's how documents on the web have always > worked, and that's what people expect.
They do: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/?style=complete http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/?style=author http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/?style=highlight It's just that the url http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ refers to specific resource based on the value of a cookie. The resources themselves are directly linkable, however. ~TJ
