On 7/4/06, Ryan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all, I haven't encountered a site where a customer asked that I used named anchors in the form of the old… This is the format they have and want to stick with…
...
Ok. Aside from the fact I know I have to go rename all these anchor names, (it's a redesign, but they're stuck with this way of thinking), is ok or is there a better more standards based practice that could be used?
The question is, what is your doctype? If you are using a doctype that supports named anchors, then you can't get anymore "standards-based" than following the code it approves. If you are using a doctype where named anchors are separated, then what benefit do you receive from this doctype, which forces you to use different markup? In short: HTML 4.01 - this is ok. No problem. XHTML 1.0 - named anchors are deprecated. Might as well stick with HTML 4.01. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.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 ******************************************************
