Anchors in table of contents on Wikipedia pages

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Office hours tomorrow, Thursday,...

Global Sysops proposal on Meta

Robert Chin

18 Sep 2009 18 Sep '09

2:34 a.m.

Show replies by date

Gerard Meijssen

18 Sep 18 Sep

5:39 a.m.

Hoi. Please upgrade your really old web browser. Thanks, GerardM 2009/9/18 Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Ray Saintonge

8:08 a.m.

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

...

Hoi. Please upgrade your really old web browser.

Not everybody can. Ec

...

2009/9/18 Robert Chin > I'm wondering since this breaks the table of contents on my (really > old) web browser... > >

Federico Leva (Nemo)

9:30 p.m.

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

Robert Chin

19 Sep 19 Sep

6:19 p.m.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)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

K. Peachey

11:28 p.m.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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

Robert Chin

21 Sep 21 Sep

1:05 a.m.

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:

...

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)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

Brian

1:13 a.m.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)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.

Brian

1:13 a.m.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:

...

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)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

s/windows/32 bits in general/ as you are on linux

Thomas Dalton

1:30 a.m.

2009/9/19 Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)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.

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.

Robert Chin

7:48 a.m.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Believe it or not, there are still DEC Unix 4 machines still in service. There is no upgrade from Netscape 4. Robert

Robert Chin

7:53 a.m.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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

Thomas Dalton

4:20 p.m.

2009/9/21 Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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?

George Herbert

6:06 p.m.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/9/21 Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)gmail.com>om>:

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Robert Chin

22 Sep 22 Sep

1:07 a.m.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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

Liangent

14 Oct 14 Oct

10:19 a.m.

I met this problem here... using w3m 0.5.2 on a Linux machine without GUI. On 9/22/09, Robert Chin <robert.chin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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?

Carl (CBM)

11:02 a.m.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Liangent <liangent(a)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

5308

days inactive

5334

days old

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

16 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Brian
Carl (CBM)
Federico Leva (Nemo)
George Herbert
Gerard Meijssen
K. Peachey
Liangent
Ray Saintonge
Robert Chin
Thomas Dalton