I have it taken care of, thanks for the support. I am using XHMTL 1.0 Strict so I have id's linking up and have passed validation.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WSG] The Standard Way...??? 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 ****************************************************** ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
