Richard Grevers wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Don't include the name in the <a>, I
think that will could it acquire
>>hovering properties (underlining, etc) which we don't want
>Which browsers do this? Is this more than just a
Yes - all those which comply with the standards: Opera,
Mozilla, and IIRC,
Opera7, incidentally, is the first browser to fully comply with the
standards and allow hover styling on all elements. However, it is also true
Standards don't require underlining upon hovering for an <a> tag.
They don't require anything; this is up to the browser to determine.
(They do require the browser to listen if the <a> tag itself
specifies some sort of behaviour like this, but ours won't.)
Are you remembering these browsers as underlining <a name> tags,
or are you remembering them as being compliant with standards?
I ask because IE5.1 for Mac OS X does not do anything with <a name>
under default settings; I just checked.
In any case <h2>The header<a name="The_header">
</a></h2> will still work.
This would be a good idea *anyway*, since people sometimes put
links inside of a header, but you can't nest <a> tags.
>And I do suggest recognising the spaces as we
normally do in our URLs,
>to avoid confusing people by doing them differently.
removing whitespace is NOT a matter of choice. What
delimits the end of an
I don't think that you understood my suggestion.
I suggest recognising the spaces *as*we*normally*do* in our URLs,
which you can see in the example above (and in my last post): underscores.
Thus, [[Main Page]] has the URL <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>,
and [[#The header]] can have the (local) URL <#The_header>.
Finally, the name attribute is more or less deprecated
in favour of "id".
It doesn't appear at all by XHTML 1.1. As I mentioned previously, the only
browser with any significant market share which doesn't support internal
links to id is Netscape 4. Which I think we can live with. Netscape 4 users
must surely be aware that many features of the modern web don't work for
"name" is not deprecated in HTML 4.01, which is what we use.
It has another point over "id", which is that "id" can't include
HTML character entities. This is not so significant, however,
since we need to allow for an analogue of the pipe trick anyway,
in case people put markup inside of a header (as sometimes happens).
And Netscape 4 users will be fine as long as they're on the right page.
All the same, there's no need to switch from "name" to "id"
until we switch from HTML to XHTML, and "name" is slightly better for now.