Rev. Kalle Räisänen wrote: > Thierry Koblentz wrote: >> Rev. Kalle Räisänen wrote: >> >>> I'll give you a point on better backwards (though not forwards) >>> compatibility, but why would name attributes offer "richer" anchor >>> names? What does name give you that id doesn't? >> >> For example one can use: >> <a name="1st_Section"></a> >> but not: >> <a id="1st_Section"></a> > > Yes, you can. id is a perfectly valid attribute for a (id is a > standard attribute that, AFAIK, can be applied to any tag). Doesn't > make much sense when used as you do there (as someone said up-thread: > use <hN id="1st_Section">...</hN> instead), but there's nothing in the > standard(s) to stop you.
Of course I know "id" is valid. Remember, it's me who suggested up in this thread to use both in a named anchor ;) The issue is not about the attributes but their value; and in the example I wrote, the validator would choke on the ID's *value*. Because "1st_Section" is a valid value for the name attribute but it is *not* for the id attribute. So to use your example: <hN id="1st_Section">...</hN> would not validate and would not be backward compatible. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
