Paul Noone wrote:
I'd tinkered with a[name]:hover but I'm loathe to create a style for this. I
don't think hiding them is th eoption either.
Why not use a class () as a[name]
doesn't yet work on IE, never mind any browser which doesn't understand
jumping to an id.
***
Gez Lemon wrote:
The name attribute is formerly deprecated for...form...in XHTML 1.0, and
deleted from XHTML 1.1.
From , yes, but not from the various form elements such as
, where it may in fact be required for proper functioning,
though "valid" without. While I'm sure most of you know this,
Martin J. Lambert wrote:
> Actually, when using XHTML Strict, "name" is not a valid attribute for
> anchors. You can use the "id" attribute to get the same jump-to-that-
> section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element,
> not just anchors. Since you don't want the appearanc
Paul Noone wrote:
> Well now I'm totally confused. Ah...can anyone spell Dreamweaver? :\
> a-HEM. Big sorry there.
>
>> What make you think you can't leave them empty?
>
> Assumptions based on a code rewrite. Is that not the case? In which
> case can it be self-containg and self-closing too?
>
>
Gez Lemon wrote:
The name attribute is formerly deprecated for a, applet, form, frame,
iframe, img, and map in XHTML 1.0, and deleted from XHTML 1.1.
I stand (well, sit) corrected. I meant deleted, but said deprecated...d'oh!
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Damien Hill wrote:
>> For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect
>> anchors.
>
> Because is not a :link, but a local anchor,
> whereas a more generic "a" style selector will include those as well.
> So yes, a simple way to avoid issues is to jus
On 31/10/05, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>
> > "name" is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates against a
> > Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0).
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
>
> No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict i
ran into problems with that somewhere.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Damien Hill
Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 9:36 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I app
Damien Hill wrote:
For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect anchors.
Because is not a :link, but a local anchor, whereas
a more generic "a" style selector will include those as well. So yes, a
simple way to avoid issues is to just define a:link, a:visited etc,
lea
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Thanks guys. Patrick is right. I'd already validated the code and it came up
fine.
The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML, XHTML
seems to require that the tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an
would
Paul Noone wrote:
> The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML,
> XHTML seems to require that the tag surrounds some text. Perhaps
> an would do it?
What make you think you can't leave them empty?
> How are other people preventing this, apart from hiding their anchor
Thanks guys. Patrick is right. I'd already validated the code and it came up
fine.
The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML, XHTML
seems to require that the tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an
would do it?
The named anchor is picking up the color of the a:link style
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
"name" is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates against a
Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0).
Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict it's perfectly valid
to use the name attribute on anchors. It's only XHT
Martin J. Lambert wrote:
>> From: Thierry Koblentz
>> I'm not sure about that, I think it is better to use both attributes
>> and may be even "more" to prevent a IE bug related to tabbing
>> navigation. http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/anchor.php
>> http://www.juicystudio.com/article/ie-keyboard-na
> From: Thierry Koblentz
> Martin J. Lambert wrote:
> > Actually, when using XHTML Strict, "name" is not a valid attribute for
> > anchors. You can use the "id" attribute to get the same jump-to-that-
> > section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element,
> > not just anchors. Si
Martin J. Lambert wrote:
> Actually, when using XHTML Strict, "name" is not a valid attribute for
> anchors. You can use the "id" attribute to get the same jump-to-that-
> section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element,
> not just anchors. Since you don't want the appearance o
> From: Paul Noone
>
> When using XHTML strict named anchors need to surround some link text, yes?
>
> I'd tinkered with a[name]:hover but I'm loathe to create a style for this.
I
> don't think hiding them is th eoption either.
Actually, when using XHTML Strict, "name" is not a valid attribute
On 10/31/05, Paul Noone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have a standard approach to unstyling named anchors I this case
> which will work cross-browser?
How about some Javascript? I don't really know what I'm doing with
that beast, but maybe something like document.getElementsByName("*");
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Paul Noone
Sent: Monday, 31 October 2005 4:04 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Hiya,
When using XHTML strict named anchors need to surround some link text, yes?
Does anyone have a standard
Hiya,
When using XHTML strict named anchors need to surround some link text, yes?
Does anyone have a standard approach to unstyling named anchors I this case
which will work cross-browser?
I'd tinkered with a[name]:hover but I'm loathe to create a style for this. I
don't think hiding them is th
20 matches
Mail list logo
