Thanks! So next q is non-chromium/Blink browser response. Cc'ing @othermaciej @bz_moz
-
-
Replying to @BrendanEich @tomayac and
Official Mozilla response to this will be at https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/194 … -- we are still trying to sort out why exactly Google decided to not go with the existing fragmentions work and instead went off to create its own thing, and what that means in terms of what we should do.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @really_bz @bz_moz and
assuming you mean: https://indieweb.org/fragmention , the main points: 1. fragmentation doesn't work where the page uses frag-based routing. Users might want to link to such pages and we can't tell a priori if it will work or not. It'd be confusing why some pages don't work.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @david_bokan @bz_moz and
2. We did lots of trials with Google Search and found simple text strings to be ambiguous in too many cases. I'll see if I can post some of our findings publicly.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @david_bokan @bz_moz and
3. Privacy. It makes sense to hide the text query string from even the destination page. Without the :~: syntax and fragment stripping, the page would be able infer sensitive information e.g. a user's search terms.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @david_bokan @bz_moz and
Oh, and on point #2: we started with a simple syntax-less string similar to fragmentation but got feedback from the WebAnnotations community that they'd been down that road and it was too ambiguous. We tried to match WA's https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#text-quote-selector … where we could.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @really_bz @bz_moz and
Yes, it was given in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19169698 … and referenced herehttps://github.com/WICG/ScrollToTextFragment/issues/4#issuecomment-463988339 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @david_bokan @BrendanEich and
Thank you. Fwiw, putting that sort of thing somewhere in an explainer would be pretty helpful in the future when evaluating standards proposals.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @really_bz @bz_moz and
Agree that a fulsome "Considered Alternatives" section is good practice for Explainers. We're gonna do some work to try to improve this in coordination w/ the
@w3ctag.1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
Not just considered alternatives, but also specific links to problems with them, if possible.
-
-
Replying to @really_bz @bz_moz and
@bz_moz have I understood this correctly? Are they saying a feature (/#/page1) of sites made in JS is driving an HTML standard? If so, seems an incredibly slippery slope.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @really_bz @bz_moz and
Agree we could have done a better job of documenting our failed attempts. I'll add that to our explainer.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.