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 () as a[name]
doesn't yet work on IE, never mind any browser which doesn't understand
jumping to an id.
***
Gez Lemon wrote:
The name attribute is formerly deprecated for...form...in XHTML 1.0, and
deleted from XHTML 1.1.
From , yes, but not from the various form elements such as
, where it may in fact be required for proper functioning,
though "valid" without. While I'm sure most of you know this,
Ah, no, nevermind. Managed to solve it just after I sent this :$
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=96966 pointed me in
the right direction... getting rid of position:fixed on #prinav li
worked (leftover from an earlier iteration).
I don't know if this bug has a name, though... jus
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
th
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 appearanc
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 http://www.200ok.com.au/>
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
>
> It would be simple enough to do 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
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
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 PROT
csslist 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://
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?
>
>
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/con
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
_
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 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 jus
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 i
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?
I'm sure I ran into problems wit
Damien Hill wrote:
For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect anchors.
Because 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,
lea
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.o
Paul Noone wrote:
> The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML,
> XHTML seems to require that the tag surrounds some text. Perhaps
> an would do it?
What make you think you can't leave them empty?
> How are other people preventing this, apart from hiding their anchor
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 tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an
would do it?
The named anchor is picking up the color of the a:link style
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 XHT
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-na
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 http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See ht
> 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. Si
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.ins
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 y
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 o
> 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
28 matches
Mail list logo
