Re: Dumb moniker questions (was Re: Bonobo dependencies ...)

[Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com>]

Hi Joe,

On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Joe Shaw wrote:
> This may only be useful against a Control moniker,
> but I could see it returning a Stream of only that anchor (or perhaps
the
> rest of the HTML file starting at that anchor).

        Yes; good. A separate moniker would make this process clean and   
extensible eg. the 'anchor' moniker:

        Anchor pseudo code ( perhaps )

        if (stream) {
                get stream from parent
                parse
                return stream of sub-section
        }

        if (control) {
                get stream from parent
                give to EBrowser
                set anchor from our text
        }
         
        ... we need a more extensible mechanism here.

> I'm not saying that an anchor should be a whole different moniker but
> that the http moniker should do The Right Thing when given one.

        I disagree that we should do nasty, inextensible hacks in the
moniker namespace to support compatibility with another namespace.

> >         Again, what if my html is not coming via. an http
transport; this
> > approach looks strange to me.
> 
> Hmm. Good point. file:///home/joe/stuff.html\#anchor would be valid, but
I
> can see how that would somewhat hard to parse.
     
        But of course file:///home/joe/stuff.html#anchor:myanchor would   
work just beautifuly :-)
     
        Regards,
     
                Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot