W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2005

Re: checklink:

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:37:03 +1100
Message-ID: <437DD8FF.6080706@lachy.id.au>
To: Andy Walker <Andy.Walker@TopGPS.co.uk>
CC: www-validator@w3.org

Andy Walker wrote:
> I accept the anchor tag should be inside the <body>

anchor *element*.

> But with the anchor <a name="top"></a> even  _immediately_  after the
> <body> element there are a few pixels left undisplayed at the top of
> the page when the jump is made to that point.

The reason for that is because the body element has top margin and/or 
padding by default in most browsers.  You can remove it using a stylesheet

body { margin: 0; padding: 0; }

You may adjust those to suit your needs to add left and right 
margin/padding if you like.  That CSS will remove margin and padding 
from all sides.

> Whereas if the <a name="top"></a> is missing (on purpose) then the 
> 'return to top' jump really does that...

The fact that some non-conformant browsers choose to accept #top as an 
implied link to the top of the page is irrelevant.  You cannot depend on 
such buggy behaviour to work in all browsers.

> So... Leaving the anchor OUT means I get the functionality that I 
> need (& expect) but it causes many errors in the link-checker.

Be careful of the "it works for me" syndrome.  If a validator tells you 
your code is wrong, it's wrong.  DO NOT accept the behaviour of your 
favourite browser(s) as being correct in all cases.

> What I was trying to describe with the 'broken fragments' part was 
> that there are many portions of the source html where I've chosen to 
> layout the code for readability e.g. (layout 1):
> 
> <area shape="poly" coords="218,55,213,51,204,54,205,61,212,60"
> href="#place4" alt="Place 4" title="Place 4">
> 
> Rather than (layout 2):
> 
> <area shape="poly" coords="218,55,213,51,204,54,205,61,212,60" 
> href="#place4" alt="Place 4" title="Place 4">
> 
> I've never read anything which says this is bad practice.

Assuming you meant for the second to appear all on one line, both are 
correct.  It does not matter whether a start-tag spans more than one line.

> When the link checker notices that the <a name="top"></a> is missing
>  then it ALSO complains about the 'layout 1' style of source code -

Now I understand what you mean and I see you are mistaken.  You are not 
interpreting the results correctly.

| ...
| Lines: 20, 24, 28, 31, 80, 111
| Broken fragments and their line numbers: They need to be fixed!
|    top: 80, 111

The first set of line numbers (some of which match those of the area 
elements in your source) are merely advising you of the location of all 
the links to other fragments within the document.  It does not say 
anything  about them being invalid in any way.  Only the two links to 
#top in this case, on lines 80 and 111, are broken.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 13:45:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:20 GMT