Hi Maciej, Thanks for the reply! David's away this week, my responses are inline:
(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. It seems like the spec doesn’t provide a solution for this. We think some form of feature detection would slightly improve the situation. Other than that, We're not sure how to avoid potential breakage. Maybe evangelize WebMD if that’s the only major site that breaks on unexpected fragments? There is a feature detection mechanism that we have [specified](https://wicg.github.io/ScrollToTextFragment/#feature-detectability) and implemented, see [#19](https://github.com/WICG/ScrollToTextFragment/issues/19). Feature detection can be done by checking `typeof(window.location.fragmentDirective) == 'object'`. Indeed, there is still a compat concern as described in the intent to ship, since these links will exist in the wild. Since WebMD is the only broken site we've come across, I agree it would be good to make sure they're aware of this. I'll reach out. (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. Agreed - we're wrapping up on some smaller remaining issues and our next step is to turn this into PRs. > (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. We wanted to keep this simple to ensure links are robust (generally they will be generated algorithmically, where one can ensure the text directive is unique in the page). If we add the dimension of relying on starting at a fragment, that fragment or the text could move in the page and break the link, even if the desired text is still present on the page. Feel free to open a Github issue if you think this is worth discussing more! Thanks, Nick
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
