W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: markup conventions: a "toplinks" convention

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:41:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199811041741.MAA04956@access2.digex.net>
To: nir.dagan@econ.upf.es
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Yes, and yes.  But in part it is a concession to those who say
"just tell me what to do."  You are right that having an accepted
cliche for the link text for this function is in a way more
important than having a conventional value for the NAME of the
link destination.  So long as the NAME cited in the jump link and
the one at the destination match, that is the critical

Well, I wanted to assert that string because otherwise others
will name that point "jump-header" which is the role that this
point plays as viewed from the origin of the bypass link.  But
not in general.  I wanted it named in a way which was generic
across its use as a destination from the head of the header and
from random points across the web.  And to get people to satisfy
that criterion, I thought it was easiest to just tell them the
text to use, not the rule to satisfy.  It's a pedagogical problem
with the absolutely-least-constraining technical solution.


to follow up on what nir.dagan@econ.upf.es said:

> Al wrote:
> ...The specific text of the anchor name and link text..
>  should be a topic of recommended usage in the guidelines document.
> Why should the anchor name be "standard"? Is it in order to allow external
> websites to link to a website without checking the name of the anchor? or 
> for configuring a browser "always look for #start-reading when following a 
> link that has no fragment identifier"?
> Regards,
> Nir Dagan
> http://www.nirdagan.com
> mailto:nir@nirdagan.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 1998 12:44:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:31:49 UTC