-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 dolphinling schrieb: > Recommended by who? Not me. ;) (and increasingly more standards > advocates, too.) At least by me. And I'd say by the W3C people, because otherwise there is no point in saying XHTML is HTMLs successor.
> id is perfectly valid HTML, and is considered best practice. <a > name="">, while valid, is not considered best practice. > For this use case id and name are totally equal, so I don't see the argument for switching. Some people might say it is the best practice, but I don't see any reasoning behind this. (I personally would switch, too, because name is basically a senseless duplicate of id in one or another sense and will be deprecated in XHTML 2.0 as I said before, but if you are using HTML anyway it doesn't really make sense). > It breaks URL hierarchy structure, which is more important than > "separation of code and binary", since URL structure is user-facing. > There is actually a system and URL hierarchy structure in this. I also fail to see what a end-user should ever have to do with where images are stored etc. If he wants the image he will right-click it and say "Save as...". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEC01+0JXcdjR+9YQRAgTBAJ9e1qUOzvjOG4WLa8VR/4EURSCpmwCfXBng ykWt/RUZBdDTyl1QbwtXdxY= =ywh4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
