|
|
Posted by Richard Quick on 05/25/05 17:40
Richard Quick
http://www.chocolatemagazine.co.uk
"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:ptt891dplitul8i87510fakfetdkk8a1sh@4ax.com...
> "Richard Quick" <richard.quick@chocolatemagazine.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >xhtml 1.1 doesn't allow the name attribute, so anchor tags should look
like
> >this:
> >
> ><a id="anchor"></a>
> >
> >Bobby seems to think this is an empty link tag, and therefore fails the
page
> >for having links that don't make sense out of context.
> >
> >Anyone know a workaround to this?
>
> Put some content inside it. Normally you want to link to a specific
> section of a page, and specific sections of a page normally have
> headers. So <h2><a id="anchor">Heading</a></h2>
>
> But, you might as well go the whole way and just use <h2
> id="anchor">Heading</h2> because by dropping the name attribute you've
> already dropped support for old browsers - I can't think of a single
> browser that supports using ids as anchors on <a> but not on other
> elements.
Thanks - that's perfect.
> >BTW - I know all the arguments about Booby not being the be-all and end
all.
> >I normally just use it as a tool to check if I've forgotten anything, but
on
> >this occasion the client has specified that they want xhtml 1.1 that
> >validates AAA with Bobby. Grrrr!
> Your client is happy for the site to be Bobby friendly rather than
> actually accessible? And is happy for it to be XHTML 1.1 rather than
> something that works in IE? Does your client know more about web
> authoring than you do? If so why aren't they doing the work
> themselves?
Hey - I'm just the hired help.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|