Hi, I am no expert on HTML ... so I need explicit reference to RFC or something to justify your opinion.
> All the examples of anchor targets (<a name="foo">) in the HTML > standard use it to enclose some descriptive text or similar content. > Christoph's example of using a stylesheet to highlight link targets > certainly puts it in the realm of what the WCAG are supposed to > describe. But I admit, I cannot find any document that comes out and > says so. So this was disappointing ... On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:22:38PM -0500, Samuel Bronson wrote: > Control: tags -1 + patch > > Well, whether or not it's more important to convert everything to > docbook, it's a lot easier to fix *this* (especially given the number of > packages affected): > > diff --git a/tools/lib/Format/HTML.pm b/tools/lib/Format/HTML.pm > index 590bd79..5a99c2e 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/Format/HTML.pm > +++ b/tools/lib/Format/HTML.pm > @@ -614,8 +614,7 @@ sub _output_heading > output( "\n" ); > output( "<hr>\n" ); > output( "\n" ); > - output( "<h" . ( $_[1] + 2 ) . ">" ); > - output( "<a name=\"$_[3]\"></a>" ); > + output( "<h" . ( $_[1] + 2 ) . " id=\"$_[3]\">" ); > output( "$_[2] " ) if length( $_[2] ); > output( $_[0] ); > output( "</h" . ( $_[1] + 2 ) . ">\n" ); This is bug fix not for wheezy but for jessie... we are under freeze. Instead of current: <a name="foo"></a> <h1>blablabla</h1> you want: <h1 id="foo">blablabla</h1> but not: <a id="foo"><h1>blablabla</h1></a> nor: <h1><a name="foo">blablabla</a></h1> OK. I see. First of all, let's look at bug web paeg: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=616043 This HTML source has: | <div class="infmessage"><hr> | <a name="1"></a> | <!-- request_addr: [email protected], Debian Policy List | ... So this is accepted ways by some people. For example: http://www.bignosebird.com/tags/ahref.shtml (I initially thought funny for this type of coding.) This is purly easthetics. But since you are so concerned, I googled around :-) Official HTML4 http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html Clearly, use of <a name="foo"></a> is not illegal but it says: | Note. User agents should be able to find anchors created by empty A | elements, but some fail to do so. For example, some user agents may not | find the "empty-anchor" in the following HTML fragment: | | <A name="empty-anchor"></A> | <EM>...some HTML...</EM> | <A href="#empty-anchor">Link to empty anchor</A> Official HTML5 http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/a.html | The name attribute on the a element is obsolete. Consider putting an id | attribute on the nearest container instead. Then I also found: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/484719/html-anchors-with-name-or-id Highest voted answer had: | You shouldn’t use <h1><a name="foo"/>Foo Title</h1> in any flavor of | HTML served as text/html, because the XML empty element syntax isn’t | supported in text/html. However, <h1><a name="foo">Foo Title</a></h1> is | OK in HTML4. It is not valid in HTML5 as currently drafted. | | <h1 id="foo">Foo Title</h1> is OK in both HTML4 and HTML5. This won’t | work in Netscape 4, but you’ll probably use a dozen other features that | don’t work in Netscape 4. So thsi all leads me to conclusion that we are at HTML4 and your patch seems sane solution for every practical cases. I have changed bug status to normal and will fix this for jessie. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
