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 () 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 **
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 , 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, 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
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 **
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? > > It's: 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 **
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 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
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
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 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 tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an
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
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, 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
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 tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an
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
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 > 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
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.
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
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
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
> 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 **
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 **
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
On 10/31/05, Paul Noone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have a standard approach to unstyling named anchors I this case
> which will work cross-browser?
How about some Javascript? I don't really know what I'm doing with
that beast, but maybe something like document.getElementsByName("*");
and then do this.style.display="none"; ? I doubt wildcards work as
simply as that, though, if at all...
...or am I missing what you're trying to do here?
(If you're not proficient in Javascript... ignore me, I don't know
what I'm talking about, and it takes hours for me to make any script
do what I need it to do!)
Hope this isn't too far off the mark...
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
How have you applied your link styles?
a { ... }
Or
a:link, a:visited { ... }
If you style links without specifying the :link pseudo-class, then you
select all anchors - whether or not the href attribute is present.
Hope that solves the problem.
Cheers,
Damien
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Paul Noone
Sent: Monday, 31 October 2005 4:04 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Unstyling named anchors
Hiya,
When using XHTML strict named anchors need to surround some link text, yes?
Does anyone have a standard approach to unstyling named anchors I this case
which will work cross-browser?
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.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John Allsopp
Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2005 2:11 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Semantic Calendar
Hi,
Check out the hcalendar microformat
http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar
It's based on the widely used iCalender format from the IEEE.
Two of the founders of Microformats, Tantek Celik and Eric Meyer are
speaking at Web Essentials in Sydney at the end of September.
http://we05.com
Tantek in particular will be looking a the issues of semantics in detail
john
On 18/08/2005, at 1:20 PM, Scott Swabey ((Lafinboy Productions)) wrote:
> G'day all
>
> I have been tinkering with a calendar generation script (PHP if
> relevant), and have developed two versions. One uses a semantically
> correct table for layout, the other uses ordered lists to hold and
> layout the day names and month dates. After working on this for a
> while and thinking about it for wa too long I am faced with the
> quandary - which of the two versions is _more_ semantically correct?
> Does a calendar (single month) qualify as tabular data, are ordered
> lists a better fit, or should I be looking at another option?
>
> Any feedback/opinions would be appreciated.
>
> Regards
>
> Scott Swabey
> Lafinboy Productions
> www.lafinboy.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
> **
>
>
John Allsopp
style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum
:: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher ::
http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher
Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.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
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
