- 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>
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 UTC