Re: <A> content model in Cougar

In article <31FC9311.2781E494@uk.fnx.com>,
Abigail <abigail@uk.fnx.com> wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > How exactly would you link a header? If <A HREF="foo"><H1>Hello</H1></A>
> > would be identical to <H1><A HREF="foo">Hello</A></H1>, then why allow
> > the first construct at all?
> 
> But is <a name = 'foo'><h1>Bla bla</h1></a> the same as <h1><a name = 'foo'>
> Bla bla</a></h1>? The first (if legal) is an anchor to a header, the second
> is an anchor to a piece of text, which just happens to be content of a header.

It would seem to me that in the first case, ID is a much better option.
The main problem with <A NAME> is that it should have the same declaration
as <A HREF>. They're both instances of <A>, after all.

I do not see what good <A HREF="foo"><H1>bla</H1></A> would do. What
exactly makes this different from anchoring the text inside the header?

> What would happen if the header is extended to 'Bla bla, womble'? In the first
> case, it's clear it will become
> <a name = 'foo'><h1>Bla bla, womble</h1></a>, but in the second? Will it be
> <h1><a name = 'foo'>Bla bla</a>, womble</h1>, or
> <h1><a name = 'foo'>Bla bla, womble</a></h1> ?

Up to the author, I'd say. If you want to include womble in the target,
go ahead.

> > > around non-containers, it should be wrappable around containers (such
> > > as headings) as well. Is there some reason someone decided it shouldn't
> > > be? I'd like to know the reason...
> 
> I don't understand the remark about containers. As far as I know,
> <a href = 'foo'><strong>Blah</strong></a> is legal, and <strong> is a 
> container.

I believe the "containers" here referred to "block elements", such as
paragraphs, headers and lists.

Galactus

-- 
To find out more about PGP, send mail with HELP PGP in the SUBJECT line to me.
E-mail: galactus@stack.urc.tue.nl - Please PGP encrypt your mail if you can.
Finger galactus@turtle.stack.urc.tue.nl for public key (key ID 0x416A1A35).
Anonymity and privacy site: <http://www.stack.urc.tue.nl/~galactus/remailers/>

Received on Monday, 29 July 1996 15:26:31 UTC