[whatwg] hash Attribute
Charles Iliya Krempeaux
supercanadian at gmail.com
Wed Nov 15 10:32:07 PST 2006
On 11/15/06, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
> Michel Fortin wrote:
> > I'm beginning to think that the link "fingerprint" method is best
> > solution because the hash is more portable as part of the URL. I could
> > for instance copy a fingerprinted URL right into this email:
> > http://example.com/file#!md5!b3187253c1667fac7d20bb762ad53967
> Indeed, that's one of the major use cases.
> > and a knowledgeable browser receiving this URL would know how to check
> > the validity of the received document. The two concerns I have with it
> > is that it somewhat distorts the concept of a fragment identifier,
> It does a bit; but the fragment identifier is unused for binary
> downloads, so there's not much risk of a clash.
Just an FYI.
I've been promoting the use of fragments for (binary) video file. (Not
here... but privately and on one public mailing list.)
Also, I've suggested (privately and on one public mailing list) the use of
fragments on video files for "pointing to" clips. (I.e., "pointing to"
intervals of the video.)
(Note that there are 2 SMTPE time codes there separated with a hypen. So it
would be the clip, with in the video, from "01:20:39:15" to "01:28:14:50".)
(This notation was inspired by the "xpointer" fragments.)
Also, "!" is currently
> not legal in HTML ids, AIUI.
> > and
> > it's generally going to be lost if there is any redirection (although a
> > browser that knows about fingerprints could keep them across
> Indeed. In fact, it would be a security flaw to update the identifier on
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg