Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

Ben Curtis wrote, On 20.01.2005 23:58: > Or drop the anchor tag altogether. What is the browser compatibility of > this: > > Go to Some ID > ... > Some ID > > > My initial tests show great support. Anyone know better? I've been told, that some Screen-Readers don't support jumping

Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

Ben Curtis wrote: > Or drop the anchor tag altogether. What is the browser compatibility of this: Go to Some ID ... Some ID My initial tests show great support. Anyone know better? Generation 4 and below browsers don't play ball with it, and IE (even 6) has some problems with it occasiona

Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

Some heading Or drop the anchor tag altogether. What is the browser compatibility of this: Go to Some ID ... Some ID My initial tests show great support. Anyone know better? -- Ben Curtis WebSciences International http://www.websciences.org/ v: (31

Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

David R wrote: Andy Kirkwood | MOTIVE wrote: I have come across a couple of instances of this where headings have been enclosed in an anchor, i.e. Heading text This causes the text colour of the heading to change when moused-over (although not a link). From an interface perspective this can b

Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

Andy Kirkwood | MOTIVE wrote: I have come across a couple of instances of this where headings have been enclosed in an anchor, i.e. Heading text This causes the text colour of the heading to change when moused-over (although not a link). From an interface perspective this can be quite confu

Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

Title: Re: [WSG] empty named anchors One reason why you might not want to have content inside of an anchor would be because of the implementation of stylesheets (or more accurately how style rules have been specified). For example if a hover rule is written for to the element it will be

Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

Focas, Grant wrote: Empty link elements are not good (as Patrick pointed out)but what about named anchors (destination anchors)? Is there any reason why they should not be empty? I'm typically using anchors like this one: , and can't see the need to "fill" them. As Kornel pointed out; 'name=' is

Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

Empty link elements are not good (as Patrick pointed out)but what about named anchors (destination anchors)? They are obsolete. Refer to any id instead. Is there any reason why they should not be empty? I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of a bug in Netscape4. -- regards, Kornel Lesiński *

Re: [WSG] empty named anchors

Can anyone clarify? Me not :) However I'd use construction like ... Table of contents ... and you're done. -- Jan Brasna :: alphanumeric.cz | webcore.cz | designlab.cz | janbrasna.com Stop IE! - | ***

[WSG] empty named anchors

Empty link elements are not good (as Patrick pointed out)but what about named anchors (destination anchors)? Is there any reason why they should not be empty? I ask this because I am evaluating a site management application called Watchfire WebXM and it warns me of accessibility problems because