RE: checklink:

Hi Lachlan

Thanks for replying.
Perhaps a few words of explanation might make my earlier email more

I accept the anchor tag should be inside the <body> ... </body> - it's
just that I've been trying several places to try to get the page to
actually return to the very top when a link from lower down the page is

This was the original problem:
I want to have a set of 'return to top' links within the body of the web
I really want it to goto the top of page - as if the page had just
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.

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

I've updated the test pages to better demonstrate this.
Open each page and then scoll down to one of the 'return to top' links.
On the 'without_top' file the page jumps to the same place as when first
loaded but in the 'with_top' file the same action falls short...
If I could solve that then I'd be a happy chap.

(On my actual website design the missing few pixels makes more of a
difference than it does on the two test pages...)

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

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.

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 - in
fact EVERY place in the source file where an html element has been
written across several lines for readability.

My point is (and I accept this may not be a bug - only a feature:) that
to for th LinkChecker to complain about the layout of the code in many
places is confusing given that all that is really 'wrong' is a missing
<a name="top"></a> element.

Hope this makes sense 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lachlan Hunt [HYPERLINK
Sent: 18 November 2005 11:49
To: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: checklink:

Andy Walker wrote:
> Excessive complaints from LINK CHECKER when a location tag is missing 
> e.g.  <a name="top"></a>

It's called an <a> element or an anchor, not a "location tag".

> Link checker complains of many 'broken file fragments' (in my original

> html file this was a large number.) It looks like any (unrelated) line

> of HTML which is split across several lines causes an error - until 
> the location tag is inserted.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there.  What do you mean by an 
unrelated line split across several lines?

> This is similar to at least one of the already reported bugs

It doesn't look like a bug of any sort to me.


You cannot put a elements as a direct children of the html element, 
before the head and body.  They need to go within the body element or, 
if you were using a Strict DOCTYPE, within a block level parent.


> ...
> Broken fragments and their line numbers: They need to be fixed!
>                 top: 61, 92

Those lines refer to the links pointing to #top, but since there is no 
anchor with a name="top" attribute or another element with an id="top", 
so those are indeed broken links.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/174 - Release Date:

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/174 - Release Date:

Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 13:02:52 UTC