W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Promotion of XHTML

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:55:23 -0800
To: "Devon Y." <vehementpetal@hotmail.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA374425.1DBBB%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 12/31/02 11:53 AM, "Devon Y." <vehementpetal@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
>> This is false.  Using ID for anchor targeting is a feature of
>> HTML4[1], and is supported in numerous (all?) modern browsers.
> 
> No, I was correct.

No, my point was that it _is_ a feature of _HTML4_ as proven by the quote
from the spec, rather than a feature that applies to XHTML but not HTML as
your previous post implied.

> It doesn't work on Mozilla 1.2.1, Opera 6.05, or IE
> 6.0.26 on either of my Windows systems (Win 98 & ME). I just tested it again
> to be sure.

Uh, Hmm... I'm fairly certain that it actually does work fine in _all_ of
those.  This is with a valid <http://validator.w3.org/> test page right?

Just to be sure could you post the URL to example you found that _doesn't_
work for verification?


>>> I think links that don't work
>>> properly, can really confuse a person navigating the web.
>> 
>> Since there are numerous links that don't work on the web, this
>> statement is equivalent to saying the web can really confuse a
>> person navigating the web, which is perhaps true.
> 
> The point I was trying to make, was that authors shouldn't encourage
> confusing navigation.

True enough.  And then there's Flash navigation. (cheapshot)


> There's a big difference between a 404 page and an  ID
> anchor that only takes a person to the top of a long page that at first
> glance has no relevant information.

Like I said, shouldn't be an issue in today's modern browsers.  Let's see if
your example exhibits this misbehavior.


>>> Small point... IE doesn't support HTMLs' <abbr>, which means
>>> it wouldn't support XHTMLs' <abbr> either.
>> 
>> IE5+/Mac supports <abbr>.
> 
> I think I got confused with another post I read earlier. I thought we were
> talking about Windows IE. I probably should've pointed that out anyway to be
> safe.

Thanks for the clarification.


>>> As far as I know, the only Windows browsers right now that can > do
>> XHTML justice, are Mozilla and Opera 7 (beta 2).
>> 
>> IMHO I don't know how to tell if any browser does XHTML justice, as not
>> only is there not a W3C XHTML test suite to see if any particular
>> browser does XHTML justice, but there is no W3C HTML4 test suite to
>> see if any particular browser does HTML4 justice (in spite of claims
>> made by vendors of several implementations - including IE5/Mac).
> 
> Well I use XHTML as exclusively as I can, and every one of those documents
> work fine in Mozilla 1.x & Opera 7b2 (both on Windows). There are still a
> few bugs here and there in the implementations, but XHTML works just as good
> (if not better) than older HTML versions (for me). That's my test suite.

Oh boy - I hope Ian Hickson didn't see that.  ;-)


>> [1]
>>  http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#adef-id
>> 
>> "
>>  The id attribute has several roles in HTML:
>>  ...
>>  As a target anchor for hypertext links.
>> "
> 
> .....does IE5+/mac support it?

Absolutely!

Tantek
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 15:39:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:53 GMT