It's all over the article, culminating ultimately in the passage at the bottom, but that's beside the point: what evidence did you have that it was purely a "go

It's all over the article, culminating ultimately in the passage at the bottom, but that's beside the point: what evidence did you have that it was purely a "gotcha" post? Surely if you're allowed to take that (il)logical leap, then I'm allowed my reading? Or we can just not make any assumptions? > if a technically correct syntax is not widely supported The existence of notable outliers does not mean it's not widely supported. The most important implementations (browsers—i.e. those you don't have any control over) have no issues doing the right thing. Broken and broken-by-default middleware can at least be abandoned or reconfigured. Whether that should be necessary is another matter. > RFC 3986 (URI) does not define a max length for the fragment (hash). It can be 2MB, it can be 16TB. I ran into the actual limits when I tried to store image data in the fragment and promptly crashed Safari (CVE-2013-0983). What did I do next? I abandoned that half-baked idea You're right. That is a half-baked idea. And it's nothing like the author's frustration at not being able to rely on what's guaranteed by the spec.