RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
From: Paul Noone When using XHTML strict named anchors need to surround some link text, yes? I'd tinkered with a[name]:hover but I'm loathe to create a style for this. I don't think hiding them is th eoption either. Actually, when using XHTML Strict, name is not a valid attribute for anchors. You can use the id attribute to get the same jump-to-that- section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element, not just anchors. Since you don't want the appearance of a link on the page, I suggest eliminating the anchor altogether and linking to the id of whatever element is already there in the markup. -- Martin Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Martin J. Lambert wrote: Actually, when using XHTML Strict, name is not a valid attribute for anchors. You can use the id attribute to get the same jump-to-that- section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element, not just anchors. Since you don't want the appearance of a link on the page, I suggest eliminating the anchor altogether and linking to the id of whatever element is already there in the markup. I'm not sure about that, I think it is better to use both attributes and may be even more to prevent a IE bug related to tabbing navigation. http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/anchor.php http://www.juicystudio.com/article/ie-keyboard-navigation.php 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 **
[WSG] [Off Topic] Javascript Change Time Zone Offset for Date Object
Hey Guys, I am curious if you know of a way in Javascript to change the Time Zone Offset for Date Object. There is a way to getTimezoneOffset, but I do not see a way to set the Time Zone Offset. When you create a new Date object it will always be set to the current local time zone as defined on your computer. Please reply off-list. Thanks, Jim -- __ Bugs are, by definition, necessary. Just ask Microsoft! __ Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox http://www.getfirefox.com Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards http://www.maccaws.org/ Web Standards Project http://www.webstandards.org/ Web Standards Group http://www.webstandardsgroup.org/ Guild of Accessible Web Designers http://www.gawds.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] my rounded corner box isn't displaying correctly in IE
Thanks for the tip,
I tried adding this for IE in the CSS:
* html #box{/*used for internet explorer*/
float:right;
width:25em;
background-color:#789;
margin:0;
padding:0;
}
but I still get the added stuff for my box:
http://www.inspired-evolution.com/Accessibility.php
anything else I can, or should try?
On 10/30/05, Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Classic box model problem.Don't apply padding or margins (unless zero)to block level elements width a set width.
Use an additional div for padding and margins.Joe Taylorhttp://sitesbyjoe.com
RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
From: Thierry Koblentz Martin J. Lambert wrote: Actually, when using XHTML Strict, name is not a valid attribute for anchors. You can use the id attribute to get the same jump-to-that- section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element, not just anchors. Since you don't want the appearance of a link on the page, I suggest eliminating the anchor altogether and linking to the id of whatever element is already there in the markup. I'm not sure about that, I think it is better to use both attributes and may be even more to prevent a IE bug related to tabbing navigation. http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/anchor.php http://www.juicystudio.com/article/ie-keyboard-navigation.php I don't see anything in those links that necessitates the use of name; the problems seem to be related to the element having 'layout', not which attributes it uses. But if I'm wrong, or if name is required for some other reason, then it's perfectly valid to use it in (X)HTML Transitional, just not Strict. -- Martin Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] to border or not to border, that is the question
Hi All
I've always been one to remove border attributes from data table markup.
However, today I disabled styles on a fairly complicated table and realized
it made very little sense without any demarcation between the cells.
It would be simple enough to do table border=1.
And table, td, th, thead, tbody, tfoot {border:none;}
And then add them back as needed.
What do you think? Is it a good idea? Should I turn around and run away from
adding some presentational markup in my pages?
Ted Drake
Front-end Engineer
Yahoo! Tech
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Martin J. Lambert wrote: From: Thierry Koblentz I'm not sure about that, I think it is better to use both attributes and may be even more to prevent a IE bug related to tabbing navigation. http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/anchor.php http://www.juicystudio.com/article/ie-keyboard-navigation.php I don't see anything in those links that necessitates the use of name; the problems seem to be related to the element having 'layout', not which attributes it uses. But if I'm wrong, or if name is required for some other reason, then it's perfectly valid to use it in (X)HTML Transitional, just not Strict. name is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates against a Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0). Please correct me if I'm wrong here... 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 **
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Thierry Koblentz wrote: name is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates against a Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0). Please correct me if I'm wrong here... No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict it's perfectly valid to use the name attribute on anchors. It's only XHTML 1.1 that deprecated it. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Thanks guys. Patrick is right. I'd already validated the code and it came up
fine.
The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML, XHTML
seems to require that the a tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an nbsp;
would do it?
The named anchor is picking up the color of the a:link style.
I've currently got your standard style layout as below. I was wondering if
simply adding an a {} style with the right color would be appropriate.
a:link {}
a:visited {}
a:hover, a:active {}
How are other people preventing this, apart from hiding their anchor tags
(which I suppose is a fair enough solution.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
name is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates
against a Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0).
Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict it's perfectly valid to
use the name attribute on anchors. It's only XHTML 1.1 that deprecated it.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Paul Noone wrote: The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML, XHTML seems to require that the a tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an nbsp; would do it? What make you think you can't leave them empty? How are other people preventing this, apart from hiding their anchor tags (which I suppose is a fair enough solution. As a side note, hiding named anchors using display:none will confuse IE. 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 **
RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect anchors.
See example http://www.damienhill.com/tests/links/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Paul Noone
Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 7:52 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Thanks guys. Patrick is right. I'd already validated the code and it came up
fine.
The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML, XHTML
seems to require that the a tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an nbsp;
would do it?
The named anchor is picking up the color of the a:link style.
I've currently got your standard style layout as below. I was wondering if
simply adding an a {} style with the right color would be appropriate.
a:link {}
a:visited {}
a:hover, a:active {}
How are other people preventing this, apart from hiding their anchor tags
(which I suppose is a fair enough solution.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
name is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates
against a Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0).
Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict it's perfectly valid to
use the name attribute on anchors. It's only XHTML 1.1 that deprecated it.
**
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
**
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Damien Hill wrote: For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect anchors. Because a name=blah/a is not a :link, but a local anchor, whereas a more generic a style selector will include those as well. So yes, a simple way to avoid issues is to just define a:link, a:visited etc, leaving the generic a out. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Well now I'm totally confused. Ah...can anyone spell Dreamweaver? :\ a-HEM.
Big sorry there.
What make you think you can't leave them empty?
Assumptions based on a code rewrite. Is that not the case? In which case can
it be self-containg and self-closing too?
a name=fubar /
I'm sure I ran into problems with that somewhere.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Damien Hill
Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 9:36 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect anchors.
See example http://www.damienhill.com/tests/links/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Paul Noone
Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 7:52 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Thanks guys. Patrick is right. I'd already validated the code and it came up
fine.
The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML, XHTML
seems to require that the a tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an nbsp;
would do it?
The named anchor is picking up the color of the a:link style.
I've currently got your standard style layout as below. I was wondering if
simply adding an a {} style with the right color would be appropriate.
a:link {}
a:visited {}
a:hover, a:active {}
How are other people preventing this, apart from hiding their anchor tags
(which I suppose is a fair enough solution.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
name is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates
against a Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0).
Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict it's perfectly valid to
use the name attribute on anchors. It's only XHTML 1.1 that deprecated it.
**
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
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
On 31/10/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: name is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates against a Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0). Please correct me if I'm wrong here... No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict it's perfectly valid to use the name attribute on anchors. It's only XHTML 1.1 that deprecated it. The name attribute is formerly deprecated for a, applet, form, frame, iframe, img, and map in XHTML 1.0, and deleted from XHTML 1.1. Best regards, Gez -- _ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.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 **
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Damien Hill wrote: For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect anchors. Because a name=blah/a is not a :link, but a local anchor, whereas a more generic a style selector will include those as well. So yes, a simple way to avoid issues is to just define a:link, a:visited etc, leaving the generic a out. I believe older versions of Opera would have a problem with that. They ignore a:link and require a to be styled. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. 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 **
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Gez Lemon wrote: The name attribute is formerly deprecated for a, applet, form, frame, iframe, img, and map in XHTML 1.0, and deleted from XHTML 1.1. I stand (well, sit) corrected. I meant deleted, but said deprecated...d'oh! P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] help on making this link validate
I need to get this email link to validate, i am using a coldfusion function to do this and I tried encoding it to a url safe line (urlencodedformat) but jacks it, any other ideas?or any good ideas for hiding emails from spammers that can use a dynamic email address..http://65.36.226.10/content/contact.cfmtiadave
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Paul Noone wrote: Well now I'm totally confused. Ah...can anyone spell Dreamweaver? :\ a-HEM. Big sorry there. What make you think you can't leave them empty? Assumptions based on a code rewrite. Is that not the case? In which case can it be self-containg and self-closing too? a name=fubar / It's: a name=fubar id=fubar/a 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 **
RE: [WSG] help on making this link validate
You could just try hex encoding the address. There are several utilities available that will convert an email (or any other address) to its hexadecimal value. It's not bulletproof but, then, what is. And it validates. FYI, Smarty (PHP template system) has this built-in. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslistSent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 10:15 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] help on making this link validate I need to get this email link to validate, i am using a coldfusion function to do this and I tried encoding it to a url safe line (urlencodedformat) but jacks it, any other ideas?or any good ideas for hiding emails from spammers that can use a dynamic email address..http://65.36.226.10/content/contact.cfmtiadave
Re: [WSG] help on making this link validate
thanks,the way its written im not sure if i can or not, i will try though :)From: "Patrick H. Lauke" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 6:30 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] help on making this link validatecsslist wrote: I need to get this email link to validate, i am using a coldfusion function to do this and I tried encoding it to a url safe line (urlencodedformat) but jacks it, any other ideas? or any good ideas for hiding emails from spammers that can use a dynamic email address.. http://65.36.226.10/content/contact.cfmAeh...I'm not a coldfusion person, but essentially you're missing the double quotes around your href attribute...can you not just stick them in?to-- Patrick H. Lauke__redux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.ukhttp://redux.deviantart.com__Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Forcehttp://webstandards.org/__**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] to border or not to border, that is the question
It would be simple enough to do table border=1.
And table, td, th, thead, tbody, tfoot {border:none;}
And then add them back as needed.
What do you think? Is it a good idea? Should I turn around and run away from
adding some presentational markup in my pages?
I think it's find to have border=1 in the markup. As you said,
without the CSS, the table really lacks visually, so I think you would
actually be making it less accessible by not hard coding the border.
--
--
C Montoya
rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.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
**
Re: [WSG] to border or not to border, that is the question
Hi, However, today I disabled styles on a fairly complicated table and realized it made very little sense without any demarcation between the cells. It would be simple enough to do table border=1. I've found that tables really need a border to make sense, much the same as a fieldset needs the border. I think it should be the default, basically. So, for all my tables I include border=1 and style however I want over the top of that. Ben Buchanan -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Martin J. Lambert wrote: Actually, when using XHTML Strict, name is not a valid attribute for anchors. You can use the id attribute to get the same jump-to-that- section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element, not just anchors. Since you don't want the appearance of a link on the page, I suggest eliminating the anchor altogether and linking to the id of whatever element is already there in the markup. Unfortunately, this won't work in Netscape 4 and earlier, so if you are getting any hits from those browsers, you pretty much need to use name as well as id or you will be breaking navigation for some people. Geoff. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Opera list positioning oddity
Hi all, Just done on a site that is near-pixel perfect in (I think) everything but Opera, which does something weird with the nav (rendering the site unusable). I have absolutely no idea why, though. IE was showing some quirky behaviours but I managed to make Firefox (and Konqueror) display in the same way by setting the nav ul (#prinav) to position:relative and then manually working the individual li's back into position. Opera, after whatever I did (can't remember the specifics of it now), decided it'd be a great idea to render the nav as far down in the viewport as possible (I've got a 1280x1024 display here, a colleague on 1024x768 couldn't see it at all)... and stop the links from being clickable (whilst the image-replacement was still visible). http://spl.base10solutions.net/events.html That's the URL, any ideas? Thanks :) A bamboozled Josh -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Gez Lemon wrote: The name attribute is formerly deprecated for...form...in XHTML 1.0, and deleted from XHTML 1.1. From form, yes, but not from the various form elements such as input /, where it may in fact be required for proper functioning, though valid without. While I'm sure most of you know this, I'm sure that there are some who would read form and think that they could no longer use it with their radio buttons. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Paul Noone wrote: I'd tinkered with a[name]:hover but I'm loathe to create a style for this. I don't think hiding them is th eoption either. Why not use a class (a name=... class=named/a) as a[name] doesn't yet work on IE, never mind any browser which doesn't understand jumping to an id. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
