Re: anchor awareness (was Re: Richer & richer semantics?)
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: anchor awareness (was Re: Richer & richer semantics?)
From: Terry Allen <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:27:52 -0800 (PST)
From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Dec 23 17: 29:20 1996
| >No, because A's NAME isn't an ID in HTML. It's just a CDATA label.
| >That's true of HTML 3.2, also, and there will be nothing to stop
| >people doing the same in XML (and for the same reasons), although
| >in XML they may also use IDs (production 52).
| Good point, although there's no reason the HTML NAME attribute *couldn't*
| be declared as an SGML ID--it has to be unique within the document. Of
| course, HTML has a very expansive definition of what constitutes a name or
| name start character...
Er, no. There is no requirement in RFC 1866 that A's NAME be unique within
the document, and in fact the absence of such a requirement could eventually
become a feature of HTML by facilitating n-ary links. And HTML's
definition of a name start character is exactly the RCS's.
So linking to <a name=foo> </a> is like linking to all elements with a
particular value supplied for a particular attribute. (Although today
in practice you get a link to only one of those elements.)
Terry Allen Fujitsu Software Corp. email@example.com
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html