norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2004/04/03/brokenbrowsershttp://norman.walsh.name/2004/04/03/brokenbrowsers/comments.atom2012-05-22T18:30:57.711979ZComment 1 on /2004/04/03/brokenbrowsershttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012004-04-03T19:34:55Z2004-04-03T19:34:55ZMark Pilgrimda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Safari is broken, as were early versions of Mozilla. But the ones claiming to be MSIE are almost certainly spambots lying about their User-Agent. I used to forbid all access to anyone asking for a hash, assuming they were all broken spambots... until Safari came out. *sigh*

Comment 2 on /2004/04/03/brokenbrowsershttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022004-04-04T12:58:48Z2004-04-04T12:58:48ZBenja Fallensteinda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

You're right, of course, that this browser behavior does not follow the HTTP/1.1 spec and is therefore broken.

However, I think that the spec *should* allow, even mandate, fragids to be send (when the browser is displaying a page with a fragid), because it would allow new kinds of fragids (e.g. xpointer schemes) to be deployed with some server-side support. I see this as similar to how Citeseer looks at the referrer, and when you're coming from Google, highlights the words you've searched for like the Google cache does. (At least it used to, for some reason it didn't work when I tried right now.) IMHO, implementing new kinds of xpointers server-side by highlighting the linked document portion would be very helpful.

Comment 3 on /2004/04/03/brokenbrowsershttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00032004-04-07T12:12:07Z2004-04-07T12:12:07ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Some sort of server-side mechanism for fragments would be nice, but doesn't the slash work just fine for that?