Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Help Request about 4.01 Strict

Reply
Thread Tools

Help Request about 4.01 Strict

 
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
<(E-Mail Removed)> declared in alt.html:

> <a name="some_name">Description</a>


<a name=""> is unnecessary, as you can link to anything with an id="".
All modern browsers support this.

> My style sheet has navy (#000080) text and a white background. For a:hover
> an underline and light blue background color appear.


Either use an id, or in your stylesheet use a:link:hover instead. This
will only match anchors with the href attribute.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
<(E-Mail Removed)> declared in alt.html:

> What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened in a
> new window? (please, not javascript)


There are several ways, though it will depend on your browser. In my
browser I hold down shift when clicking a link, though I rarely do this.
Holding down ctrl and clicking (or middle clicking) opens a new tab,
which is much preferred.

IOW, you don't do it in your page, your visitor chooses to do it (or
not) when browsing your site.

> However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
> results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
> bottom of the left hand menu column.


I see others have given you pointers on this.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Luigi Donatello Asero
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006

"Mark Parnell" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:tv4el247roea$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
> <(E-Mail Removed)> declared in alt.html:
>
> > <a name="some_name">Description</a>

>
> <a name=""> is unnecessary, as you can link to anything with an id="".
> All modern browsers support this.



Could you please explain it further?
--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...italien.php 
我是意大利人



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
<(E-Mail Removed)> declared in alt.html:

> Prospective tenants are not particularly
> computer literate.


That's a huge generalisation, and not necessarily an accurate one.

> Once they leave a site a certain percentage of them will
> not be able to find it again.


Especially if you open a new window. The back button is one of the first
functions (if not *the* first) anyone learns to use in their browser. By
opening a new window, you are breaking that functionality. You're also
inconveniencing anyone who *does* know enough to be able to open links
in a new window, as they no longer have the choice where to open it.

Then there's the issue of popup blockers of course.

> deliberately without support for text-only, cell
> phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.


Here in Australia (and numerous other countries) that *is*
discrimination as David described it, and is punishable by law.

> I have read many things which rail on similar to "the shackles of the table"
> but have not seen a viable reason for abandoning them. I am very open to
> and desirous of hearing your arguments to that end.


http://davespicks.com/essays/notables.html
http://www.workingwith.me.uk/table_f..._go_table_free

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
In article <Re2ig.4141$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Mark Parnell" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
> news:tv4el247roea$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> declared in alt.html:
> >
> > > <a name="some_name">Description</a>

> >
> > <a name=""> is unnecessary, as you can link to anything with an id="".
> > All modern browsers support this.

>
>
> Could you please explain it further?


Allow me. When you want to link to something where you would be
tempted to put <a name="some_name">Description</a> put instead <a
id="some_name">Description</a>

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Luigi Donatello Asero
<(E-Mail Removed)> declared in alt.html:

> Could you please explain it further?


<a href="page.html#some_name"> can be used to link to <a
name="some_name">. But it can also be used to link to anything with
id="some_name", e.g. <h2 id="some_name"> or <ul id="some_name">.

It's supported by anything more recent than NS4, so support is pretty
much universal these days. NS4 (and other ancient browsers) will still
take you to the right page, they just won't jump to the specific point
on the page.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
<(E-Mail Removed)> declared in alt.html:

> Allow me. When you want to link to something where you would be
> tempted to put <a name="some_name">Description</a> put instead <a
> id="some_name">Description</a>


Ah, but this is only part of the story. In most cases you won't even
need to use <a id="some_name">, as "Description" will most likely
already be contained within another element such as a heading or
paragraph, and the id can be applied to that element instead of adding
an unnecessary <a>.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Mulroy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
>> Prospective tenants are not particularly
>> computer literate.

>
> That's a huge generalisation, and not necessarily
> an accurate one.


I doubt that you been questioning prospective tenants for vacation rentals
in my area as to how computer literate they are. I have been doing that for
a long time. My statement is from experience, not from prejudice.

>> deliberately without support for text-only, cell
>> phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.

>
> Here in Australia (and numerous other countries) that *is*
> discrimination as David described it, and is punishable by law.


1-I am not in Australia.
2-Photographs are viewable only by those who can see. No court or
legislator can change that fact be they in Australia or not.
3-I doubt that Australian (or any of the "numerous countries" you
allude to) law mandates that I am guilty of discrimination if I fail to
support someone's PDA.

Thanks for posting the links. I'll spend some time with them.

.. Ed

> Mark Parnell wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
> declared in alt.html:
>
>> Prospective tenants are not particularly
>> computer literate.

>
> That's a huge generalisation, and not necessarily an accurate one.
>
>> Once they leave a site a certain percentage of them will
>> not be able to find it again.

>
> Especially if you open a new window. The back button is one of the first
> functions (if not *the* first) anyone learns to use in their browser. By
> opening a new window, you are breaking that functionality. You're also
> inconveniencing anyone who *does* know enough to be able to open links
> in a new window, as they no longer have the choice where to open it.
>
> Then there's the issue of popup blockers of course.
>
>> deliberately without support for text-only, cell
>> phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.

>
> Here in Australia (and numerous other countries) that *is*
> discrimination as David described it, and is punishable by law.
>
>> I have read many things which rail on similar to "the shackles of the
>> table"
>> but have not seen a viable reason for abandoning them. I am very open to
>> and desirous of hearing your arguments to that end.

>
> http://davespicks.com/essays/notables.html
> http://www.workingwith.me.uk/table_f..._go_table_free
>
> --
> Mark Parnell
> My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
> http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Mulroy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2006
> Perhaps you need: text-decoration: none; in your
> hover style? ...


No, I don't want that. The a:hover is as I want it. I do not want to
discard behavior that I worked to achieve because Firefox decides to
decorate a non-link as if it were a link. It decorates acronym items also
although not in any way that you can control or turn off.

> Then change it. S'far as I know, IE and all the rest treat
> an <a> hover the same...


As I have described, Firefox treats it differently for
<a name=

>> <a name="some_name"></a>Description

>
> ..and nothing to click on.


Correct. The name= construct is not something on which one can click.

> Really easy where there aren't table cells to deal with... <g>


Tables are easy. CSS is not easy. If it were then there wouldn't be so
many megs of blogs and web site tutorials trying to explain how to do the
same things that tables do.

.. Ed

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote in message
> news:sw1ig.151697$(E-Mail Removed)...



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Mulroy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2006
> <a name=""> is unnecessary, as you can link
> to anything with an id="". All modern browsers support this.


So I should replace
<a name="something"></a>Text
with
<span id="something">Text</span>
and a link such as
webpagename.htm#something
will still work?

> ... or in your stylesheet use a:link:hover instead.


Not "instead". It is already there.

From the style sheet:
---------------------
a:link { color: #000080; text-decoration: none; }
a:visited { color: #800000; text-decoration: none; }
a:hover { color: #000080; text-decoration: underline; background-color:
#D7D7FF; }
a:active { color: #800000; text-decoration: none; }

a:link, a:visited, a:hover, a:active, td.smborders, .navycentmid,
..dayname, .moname
{ font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; }

a:link, a:visited, a:hover, a:active, td.smborders, .dayname, .navycentmid
{ font-size: small; }
---------------------

.. Ed

> Mark Parnell wrote in message
> news:tv4el247roea$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> <a name="some_name">Description</a>

>
> <a name=""> is unnecessary, as you can link to anything
> with an id="". All modern browsers support this.
>
>> My style sheet has navy (#000080) text and a white
>> background. For a:hover an underline and light blue
>> background color appear.

>
> Either use an id, or in your stylesheet use a:link:hover instead. This
> will only match anchors with the href attribute.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Datagrid: Option Strict On disallows late binding -- HELP Owen Mortensen ASP .Net 7 03-13-2006 05:20 PM
!!HELP!!!! - Request.BinaryRead(Request.TotalBytes) error erin.sebastian@cowaninsurancegroup.com ASP General 0 12-01-2005 12:03 AM
Need help with strict XHTML Brendan HTML 4 11-03-2003 01:49 PM
Re: Accessing Request.InputStream / Request.BinaryRead *as the request is occuring*: How??? Brian Birtle ASP .Net 2 10-16-2003 02:11 PM
HTML Strict Help Please! e n | c k m a HTML 1 07-22-2003 06:39 AM



Advertisments