Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   HTML (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f31-html.html)
-   -   xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t161858-xhtml-1-1-anchor-tags-in-bobby.html)

Richard Quick 05-25-2005 11:34 AM

xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
Hi,

xhtml 1.1 doesn't allow the name attribute, so anchor tags should look like
this:

<a id="anchor"></a>

Bobby seems to think this is an empty link tag, and therefore fails the page
for having links that don't make sense out of context.

Anyone know a workaround to this?

BTW - I know all the arguments about Booby not being the be-all and end all.
I normally just use it as a tool to check if I've forgotten anything, but on
this occasion the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1 that
validates AAA with Bobby. Grrrr!

--
Richard Quick
http://www.chocolatemagazine.co.uk



Spartanicus 05-25-2005 12:03 PM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
"Richard Quick" <richard.quick@chocolatemagazine.co.uk> wrote:

>on this occasion the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1


Have you told your client that as per w3c recommendation xhtml 1.1
should not be served as text/html but as application/xhtml+xml (which IE
cannot handle)?

http://www.chocolatemagazine.co.uk

Does your client find errors acceptable?:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...agazine.co.uk/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...agazine.co.uk/

And is this what the layout on your site is supposed to look like?:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/spartan.../chocolate.png

--
Spartanicus

Richard Quick 05-25-2005 12:10 PM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
That's not the site I'm working on for my client. It's a personal site that
I haven't finished yet.

Thanks anyway.

If you've got an answer to my actual question, I'd very much appreciate it.

--
Richard Quick
http://www.chocolatemagazine.co.uk
"Spartanicus" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:cmp8911ji49761ipq7av1eflu2hlaecejp@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...
> "Richard Quick" <richard.quick@chocolatemagazine.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >on this occasion the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1

>
> Have you told your client that as per w3c recommendation xhtml 1.1
> should not be served as text/html but as application/xhtml+xml (which IE
> cannot handle)?
>
> http://www.chocolatemagazine.co.uk
>
> Does your client find errors acceptable?:
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...agazine.co.uk/
>

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...agazine.co.uk/
>
> And is this what the layout on your site is supposed to look like?:
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/spartan.../chocolate.png
>
> --
> Spartanicus




Steve Pugh 05-25-2005 01:03 PM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
"Richard Quick" <richard.quick@chocolatemagazine.co.uk> wrote:

>xhtml 1.1 doesn't allow the name attribute, so anchor tags should look like
>this:
>
><a id="anchor"></a>
>
>Bobby seems to think this is an empty link tag, and therefore fails the page
>for having links that don't make sense out of context.
>
>Anyone know a workaround to this?


Put some content inside it. Normally you want to link to a specific
section of a page, and specific sections of a page normally have
headers. So <h2><a id="anchor">Heading</a></h2>

But, you might as well go the whole way and just use <h2
id="anchor">Heading</h2> because by dropping the name attribute you've
already dropped support for old browsers - I can't think of a single
browser that supports using ids as anchors on <a> but not on other
elements.

>BTW - I know all the arguments about Booby not being the be-all and end all.
>I normally just use it as a tool to check if I've forgotten anything, but on
>this occasion the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1 that
>validates AAA with Bobby. Grrrr!


Your client is happy for the site to be Bobby friendly rather than
actually accessible? And is happy for it to be XHTML 1.1 rather than
something that works in IE? Does your client know more about web
authoring than you do? If so why aren't they doing the work
themselves?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

Leif K-Brooks 05-25-2005 02:29 PM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
Richard Quick wrote:
> BTW - I know all the arguments about Booby not being the be-all and end all.


Booby? :-)

Richard Quick 05-25-2005 02:40 PM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
Richard Quick
http://www.chocolatemagazine.co.uk
"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:ptt891dplitul8i87510fakfetdkk8a1sh@4ax.com...
> "Richard Quick" <richard.quick@chocolatemagazine.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >xhtml 1.1 doesn't allow the name attribute, so anchor tags should look

like
> >this:
> >
> ><a id="anchor"></a>
> >
> >Bobby seems to think this is an empty link tag, and therefore fails the

page
> >for having links that don't make sense out of context.
> >
> >Anyone know a workaround to this?

>
> Put some content inside it. Normally you want to link to a specific
> section of a page, and specific sections of a page normally have
> headers. So <h2><a id="anchor">Heading</a></h2>
>
> But, you might as well go the whole way and just use <h2
> id="anchor">Heading</h2> because by dropping the name attribute you've
> already dropped support for old browsers - I can't think of a single
> browser that supports using ids as anchors on <a> but not on other
> elements.


Thanks - that's perfect.

> >BTW - I know all the arguments about Booby not being the be-all and end

all.
> >I normally just use it as a tool to check if I've forgotten anything, but

on
> >this occasion the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1 that
> >validates AAA with Bobby. Grrrr!


> Your client is happy for the site to be Bobby friendly rather than
> actually accessible? And is happy for it to be XHTML 1.1 rather than
> something that works in IE? Does your client know more about web
> authoring than you do? If so why aren't they doing the work
> themselves?


Hey - I'm just the hired help.



Harlan Messinger 05-25-2005 02:42 PM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
Richard Quick wrote:
> Hi,
>
> xhtml 1.1 doesn't allow the name attribute, so anchor tags should look like
> this:
>
> <a id="anchor"></a>
>
> Bobby seems to think this is an empty link tag, and therefore fails the page
> for having links that don't make sense out of context.
>
> Anyone know a workaround to this?


Don't use <A> at all for this. Assign the ID to the HTML element to
which you actually want HREFs to lead. For example, instead of

<a id="summary"></a>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p>...</p>

use

<h2 id="summary">Summary</h2>
<p>...</p>

This won't work in prehistoric versions of Netscape and IE, but if
you're determined to use XHTML you probably don't care much whether it
works in those browsers anyway.

Andy Dingley 05-25-2005 06:36 PM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:34:47 +0100, "Richard Quick"
<richard.quick@chocolatemagazine.co.uk> wrote:

>the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1 that
>validates AAA with Bobby.


Upgrade the client. Teach them why 1.1 is a bad idea. Even if you must
go for XHTML 1.0, 1.1 is a terrible idea these days and for the
forseeable future.

Secondly educate them on why Bobby is so broken as to be barely useful
as a measure of accessibility.

Mainly though, I'd ditch 1.1 in favour of 1.0 strict.



Ashmodai 06-19-2005 12:43 AM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
Andy Dingley scribbled something along the lines of:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:34:47 +0100, "Richard Quick"
> <richard.quick@chocolatemagazine.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1 that
>>validates AAA with Bobby.

>
>
> Upgrade the client. Teach them why 1.1 is a bad idea. Even if you must
> go for XHTML 1.0, 1.1 is a terrible idea these days and for the
> forseeable future.
>
> Secondly educate them on why Bobby is so broken as to be barely useful
> as a measure of accessibility.
>
> Mainly though, I'd ditch 1.1 in favour of 1.0 strict.
>


I wouldn't say XHTML 1.1 is harmful, IF the browser is capable of
processing the right MIME type.

If you want to stick to XHTML 1.1 (with an XHTML MIME type, i.e.
application/xhtml+xml), I'd recommend a degree of browser sniffing
(sniff for explicit support of that MIME type -- MSIE claims it supports
anything, so wildcards can be ignored -- and yes, I know sniffing is
considered a Bad Thing) and sending a HTML 4.01 Strict representation --
which is easily possible with server-side scripting (if the markup is
authored appropriately, a generic search-and-replace can turn an XHTML
1.1 valid page into a HTML 4.01 Strict valid one without problems) -- if
the MIME type is not (explicitly) supported.

If you are not going to change the MIME type accordingly or can't
provide a HTML 4.01 Strict representation, ditch XHTML altogether.
Educate your client in regards to XHTML support in browsers (MSIE
doesn't support XHTML, its tagsoup processor merely allows it to guess
at XHTML passed to it with the HTML MIME type text/html) and why XHTML
isn't currently any superior to HTML in the real world.

XHTML Transitional (because Strict would be heresy in this case) with an
HTML MIME type is not much better than using non-standard HTML with an
HTML MIME type.
If you need to use an HTML MIME type, use HTML markup too.

--
Ashmo

Adrienne 06-19-2005 05:08 AM

Re: xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby
 
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ashmodai
<ashmodai@mushroom-cloud.com> writing in
news:d92f32$vjq$02$1@news.t-online.com:

> If you want to stick to XHTML 1.1 (with an XHTML MIME type, i.e.
> application/xhtml+xml), I'd recommend a degree of browser sniffing
> (sniff for explicit support of that MIME type -- MSIE claims it
> supports anything, so wildcards can be ignored -- and yes, I know
> sniffing is considered a Bad Thing) and sending a HTML 4.01 Strict
> representation -- which is easily possible with server-side scripting
> (if the markup is authored appropriately, a generic search-and-replace
> can turn an XHTML 1.1 valid page into a HTML 4.01 Strict valid one
> without problems) -- if the MIME type is not (explicitly) supported.
>


Look at HTTP_ACCEPT header, and if it supports application/xhtml+xml,
then serve it such. I serve IE6 text/html because its HTTP_ACCEPT header
does not include application/xhtml+xml.

The only caveat is that for some browsers that do support the mime type,
if there is an error in the markup, the page will not render except for
the error. Therefore, make sure the page is marked up correctly _before_
it goes on a production server.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.