Is it a mistake that the Wikipedia pages now no longer contain normal <a name=""> tags for anchors, instead only providing the name via id?
I'm wondering since this breaks the table of contents on my (really old) web browser...
Robert
Hoi. Please upgrade your really old web browser. Thanks, GerardM
2009/9/18 Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com
Is it a mistake that the Wikipedia pages now no longer contain normal <a name=""> tags for anchors, instead only providing the name via id?
I'm wondering since this breaks the table of contents on my (really old) web browser...
Robert
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Robert Chin, 18/09/2009 04:34:
Is it a mistake that the Wikipedia pages now no longer contain normal <a name=""> tags for anchors, instead only providing the name via id?
If I remember correctly they have been recently removed to save space given the assumption that almost all readers have a sufficiently recent browser.
Nemo
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Chin, 18/09/2009 04:34:
Is it a mistake that the Wikipedia pages now no longer contain normal <a name=""> tags for anchors, instead only providing the name via id?
If I remember correctly they have been recently removed to save space given the assumption that almost all readers have a sufficiently recent browser.
Do you know who I might be able to contact about this change? It seems like they ought to be able to use <a class="mw-headline" name=""> rather than <span class="mw-headline" id="">. Although I guess someone probably already thought in depth about this change.
Thanks,
Robert
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com wrote:
Do you know who I might be able to contact about this change? It seems like they ought to be able to use <a class="mw-headline" name=""> rather than <span class="mw-headline" id="">. Although I guess someone probably already thought in depth about this change.
Thanks,
Robert
You would submit it on our Bugzilla[1] under the MediaWiki section with the "Page Rendering" component whilst also attaching the "code-update-regression" keyword.
Although if I'm not mistaken this was done to allow for valid HTML5 layout or such? What is the actual browser and version you are using?
-Peachey
[1]. http://bugzilla.mediawiki.org
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com wrote: Although if I'm not mistaken this was done to allow for valid HTML5 layout or such? What is the actual browser and version you are using?
Netscape Navigator 4.78... oh well. And yes, I'm sorry. I will just try to use lynx instead.
Robert
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com
wrote:
Although if I'm not mistaken this was done to allow for valid HTML5 layout or such? What is the actual browser and version you are using?
Netscape Navigator 4.78... oh well. And yes, I'm sorry. I will just try to use lynx instead.
Robert
You are using the first release of netscape for 32 bit windows from 1998, and the oldest version of netscape that they make available in their archives. I strongly suspect there is no sane reason for this. It's an insane burden expecting anyone to support such an old browser.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com
wrote:
Although if I'm not mistaken this was done to allow for valid HTML5 layout or such? What is the actual browser and version you are using?
Netscape Navigator 4.78... oh well. And yes, I'm sorry. I will just try to use lynx instead.
Robert
You are using the first release of netscape for 32 bit windows from 1998, and the oldest version of netscape that they make available in their archives. I strongly suspect there is no sane reason for this. It's an insane burden expecting anyone to support such an old browser.
s/windows/32 bits in general/ as you are on linux
2009/9/19 Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Chin, 18/09/2009 04:34:
Is it a mistake that the Wikipedia pages now no longer contain normal <a name=""> tags for anchors, instead only providing the name via id?
If I remember correctly they have been recently removed to save space given the assumption that almost all readers have a sufficiently recent browser.
Do you know who I might be able to contact about this change? It seems like they ought to be able to use <a class="mw-headline" name=""> rather than <span class="mw-headline" id="">. Although I guess someone probably already thought in depth about this change.
I believe the standards now say not to use <a> for anchors, just for links. Wikipedia is now following the standard for anchors, which is supported by all reasonably modern browsers. Just upgrade your browser, it is inconceivable that there is any good reason to still be using Netscape 4.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the standards now say not to use <a> for anchors, just for links. Wikipedia is now following the standard for anchors, which is supported by all reasonably modern browsers. Just upgrade your browser, it is inconceivable that there is any good reason to still be using Netscape 4.
Believe it or not, there are still DEC Unix 4 machines still in service. There is no upgrade from Netscape 4.
Robert
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the standards now say not to use <a> for anchors, just for links. Wikipedia is now following the standard for anchors, which is supported by all reasonably modern browsers. Just upgrade your browser, it is inconceivable that there is any good reason to still be using Netscape 4.
And I'm not really complaining, I was just wondering what is up, since from time to time I look at Wikipedia pages on it.
Don't feel too sorry, it's not my primary computer or anything...
Robert
2009/9/21 Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the standards now say not to use <a> for anchors, just for links. Wikipedia is now following the standard for anchors, which is supported by all reasonably modern browsers. Just upgrade your browser, it is inconceivable that there is any good reason to still be using Netscape 4.
Believe it or not, there are still DEC Unix 4 machines still in service. There is no upgrade from Netscape 4.
I can imagine such a machine being kept for a very specific purpose, but why would anyone use it to browse the web?
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/21 Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the standards now say not to use <a> for anchors, just for links. Wikipedia is now following the standard for anchors, which is supported by all reasonably modern browsers. Just upgrade your browser, it is inconceivable that there is any good reason to still be using Netscape 4.
Believe it or not, there are still DEC Unix 4 machines still in service. There is no upgrade from Netscape 4.
I can imagine such a machine being kept for a very specific purpose, but why would anyone use it to browse the web?
I still use Sun systems manufactured in 1992 (but retiring it soon, despite its average 450 day uptimes) and 1996, though the bulk of mine are 2000s vintage in all of PC, Linux, Mac, and UNIX.
I still web browse on the 1996 Sun box sometimes.
It has browsers available which are significantly newer than Netscape 4.78, however...
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine such a machine being kept for a very specific purpose, but why would anyone use it to browse the web?
Truthfully, it is more because I am there using the machine waiting for something to complete. No one in their right mind would willingly want to use Netscape 4... (especially since if you are adventurous and turn on javascript, you will get a dialog box for every single javascript error it encounters, of which there are many per page due to it not understanding modern javascript code).
Robert
I met this problem here... using w3m 0.5.2 on a Linux machine without GUI.
On 9/22/09, Robert Chin robert.chin@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine such a machine being kept for a very specific purpose, but why would anyone use it to browse the web?
Truthfully, it is more because I am there using the machine waiting for something to complete. No one in their right mind would willingly want to use Netscape 4... (especially since if you are adventurous and turn on javascript, you will get a dialog box for every single javascript error it encounters, of which there are many per page due to it not understanding modern javascript code).
Robert
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Liangent liangent@gmail.com wrote:
I met this problem here... using w3m 0.5.2 on a Linux machine without GUI.
I also noticed yesterday that I could not use the table of contents in w3m. I do not regularly browse in w3m but I use it often enough when I am working over an ssh connection.
- Carl
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org