[whatwg] Comment about "6.11.8 Navigating to a fragment identifier"

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, David Bruant wrote:
> 
> My comments refer to what is after the "the indicated part of the 
> document" definition 
> (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#the-indicated-part-of-the-document)
> 
> - There is a reference to the RFC3023 that may require a link to the 
> reference section

Fixed.


> - Step 4 of the algorithm begins with "If this step was not skipped". I 
> am probably kind of niggling here (and I am sorry if it is the case), 
> but, in my humble opinion, this beginning is not necessary.

It's strictly unnecessary, but I want to be maximally unambiguous. (You'd 
be surprised how often people want to read between the lines.)


> - Step 6 : while there is not "the", I think that "indicated part of the 
> document" should be a link to the definition of "the indicated part of 
> the document".

Done. Thanks.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'