Help Request about 4.01 Strict

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy

<a name="some_name">Description</a>

My style sheet has navy (#000080) text and a white background. For a:hover
an underline and light blue background color appear.

Either use an id, or in your stylesheet use a:link:hover instead. This
will only match anchors with the href attribute.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy

What scheme is used under 4.01 strict to specify a link be opened in a
new window? (please, not javascript)

There are several ways, though it will depend on your browser. In my
browser I hold down shift when clicking a link, though I rarely do this.
Holding down ctrl and clicking (or middle clicking) opens a new tab,
which is much preferred.

IOW, you don't do it in your page, your visitor chooses to do it (or
not) when browsing your site.

However all attempts to remove the 'align' and handle it with CSS
results in the right hand table being moved down the page to past the
bottom of the left hand menu column.

I see others have given you pointers on this.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy


<a name=""> is unnecessary, as you can link to anything with an id="".
All modern browsers support this.

Could you please explain it further?

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy

Prospective tenants are not particularly
computer literate.

That's a huge generalisation, and not necessarily an accurate one.

Once they leave a site a certain percentage of them will
not be able to find it again.

Especially if you open a new window. The back button is one of the first
functions (if not *the* first) anyone learns to use in their browser. By
opening a new window, you are breaking that functionality. You're also
inconveniencing anyone who *does* know enough to be able to open links
in a new window, as they no longer have the choice where to open it.

Then there's the issue of popup blockers of course.

deliberately without support for text-only, cell
phone, PDA or blind-viewer browsers.

Here in Australia (and numerous other countries) that *is*
discrimination as David described it, and is punishable by law.

I have read many things which rail on similar to "the shackles of the table"
but have not seen a viable reason for abandoning them. I am very open to
and desirous of hearing your arguments to that end.

http://davespicks.com/essays/notables.html
http://www.workingwith.me.uk/table_free/seven_reasons_to_go_table_free

 

[dorayme]

Could you please explain it further?

Allow me. When you want to link to something where you would be
tempted to put <a name="some_name">Description</a> put instead <a
id="some_name">Description</a>

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Luigi Donatello Asero

Could you please explain it further?

<a href="page.html#some_name"> can be used to link to <a
name="some_name">. But it can also be used to link to anything with
id="some_name", e.g. <h2 id="some_name"> or <ul id="some_name">.

It's supported by anything more recent than NS4, so support is pretty
much universal these days. NS4 (and other ancient browsers) will still
take you to the right page, they just won't jump to the specific point
on the page.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme

Allow me. When you want to link to something where you would be
tempted to put <a name="some_name">Description</a> put instead <a
id="some_name">Description</a>

Ah, but this is only part of the story. In most cases you won't even
need to use <a id="some_name">, as "Description" will most likely
already be contained within another element such as a heading or
paragraph, and the id can be applied to that element instead of adding
an unnecessary <a>.

 

[Ed Mulroy]

Prospective tenants are not particularly

That's a huge generalisation, and not necessarily
an accurate one.

I doubt that you been questioning prospective tenants for vacation rentals
in my area as to how computer literate they are. I have been doing that for
a long time. My statement is from experience, not from prejudice.

Here in Australia (and numerous other countries) that *is*
discrimination as David described it, and is punishable by law.

1-I am not in Australia.
2-Photographs are viewable only by those who can see. No court or
legislator can change that fact be they in Australia or not.
3-I doubt that Australian (or any of the "numerous countries" you
allude to) law mandates that I am guilty of discrimination if I fail to
support someone's PDA.

Thanks for posting the links. I'll spend some time with them.

.. Ed

 

[Ed Mulroy]

Perhaps you need: text-decoration: none; in your

hover style? ...

No, I don't want that. The a:hover is as I want it. I do not want to
discard behavior that I worked to achieve because Firefox decides to
decorate a non-link as if it were a link. It decorates acronym items also
although not in any way that you can control or turn off.

Then change it. S'far as I know, IE and all the rest treat
an <a> hover the same...

As I have described, Firefox treats it differently for
<a name=

..and nothing to click on.

Correct. The name= construct is not something on which one can click.

Really easy where there aren't table cells to deal with... <g>

Tables are easy. CSS is not easy. If it were then there wouldn't be so
many megs of blogs and web site tutorials trying to explain how to do the
same things that tables do.

.. Ed

 

[Ed Mulroy]

to anything with an id="". All modern browsers support this.

So I should replace
<a name="something"></a>Text
with
<span id="something">Text</span>
and a link such as
webpagename.htm#something
will still work?

... or in your stylesheet use a:link:hover instead.

Not "instead". It is already there.

From the style sheet:
---------------------
a:link { color: #000080; text-decoration: none; }
a:visited { color: #800000; text-decoration: none; }
a:hover { color: #000080; text-decoration: underline; background-color:
#D7D7FF; }
a:active { color: #800000; text-decoration: none; }

a:link, a:visited, a:hover, a:active, td.smborders, .navycentmid,
..dayname, .moname
{ font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; }

a:link, a:visited, a:hover, a:active, td.smborders, .dayname, .navycentmid
{ font-size: small; }

 

[dorayme]

Tables are easy. CSS is not easy.

You are right. A lot of magic is built into tables to save you
making "good" features. But like many things magical, you often
get what you don't want along with the package... you know those
jokes where you wish for something, it comes true and turns
around to bite you?

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy

1-I am not in Australia.

Your loss. ;-)

Even if your country does not currently have law requiring that your
site be accessible, that doesn't mean it won't in the future.

2-Photographs are viewable only by those who can see. No court or
legislator can change that fact be they in Australia or not.

No one is suggesting that you have to achieve the impossible. But the
site itself still should be accessible - even if they can't see the
photos, they can still read the text.

3-I doubt that Australian (or any of the "numerous countries" you
allude to)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/

law mandates that I am guilty of discrimination if I fail to
support someone's PDA.

Most are primarily focused on people with disabilities, though I see no
reason it should not extend to people using a PDA. But if your site is
accessible to screen readers and other assistive devices it will be
accessible on a PDA anyway, so it's not like PDAs require any additional
effort.

 

[Ed Mulroy]

Of course my visitor can choose to open any of my links in a new window.

However for certain links I wish to force it to open in a new window. It is
part of the design of my site. I do not understand what thought process is
used by people to decide they have a mandate to dictate that I cannot do
this on my own site.

.. Ed

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy

<span id="something">Text</span>
and a link such as
webpagename.htm#something
will still work?

Yes (though in most cases you shouldn't even need the span). See my
reply to Luigi where I went into more detail on this.

Not "instead". It is already there.

No it isn't. Replace a:hover with a:link:hover. This will then only
affect <a> elements that are *both* a link, and being hovered.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy

However for certain links I wish to force it to open in a new window.
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_do_I_force

It is
part of the design of my site.

No, new windows are a function of the browser, and as such are under the
control of the user.

I do not understand what thought process is
used by people to decide they have a mandate to dictate that I cannot do
this on my own site.

If you want to use *your browser controls* to open new windows when
browsing your site, feel free. Just don't force that choice on your
other visitors, since you have no way of knowing their preference.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy

Of course my visitor can choose to open any of my links in a new window.

BTW: Please don't post upside down.
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

This will help:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

No, I don't want that. The a:hover is as I want it. I do not want to
discard behavior that I worked to achieve because Firefox decides to
decorate a non-link as if it were a link. It decorates acronym items also
although not in any way that you can control or turn off.


As I have described, Firefox treats it differently for
<a name=

Actually it is IE that flubbing up here, an 'A 'element whether it is an
anchor or a link is *still* an 'A' element. So...

A:hover should apply to markup as <a name="anAnchor>Some Anchor</a>

To fix it your use an attribute selector to specify only 'A' elements
that have 'href' attributes, i.e, links!

STYLE:
A { color: yellow; }
A[href]:link { color: blue; }
A[href]:visted { color: violet; }
A[href]:hover { color: green; }
A[href]:active { color: red; }
/* yes I know i didn't spec a background */

HTML:

<a name="anAnchor">An Achor</a>
<a href="#">A Link</a>

Now only the link hovers, problem is IE again is the problem with poor
CSS support. So you can work around by:

1) stop using <a name="something"></a> and reference an id on an element
<h2 id="someAnchor>... or <p id="anotherAnchor">...
2) have hovered links defined with a class
3) enclose hovered link some other element whereas your can define the
hovers

..gotLinks A:hover{}


<div class="gotLinks">Blah, blah blah <a href="#">Will Hover</a>...


You just have more studying to do....

 

[dorayme]

However for certain links I wish to force it to open in a new window. It is
part of the design of my site. I do not understand what thought process is
used by people to decide they have a mandate to dictate that I cannot do
this on my own site.

. Ed

What do you mean by "dictate"? You need to understand this is a
church, you have come in and are hearing the teachings. No one is
forcing you to do anything.

The thought processes behind the recommendation concerned? You
were given some of them. Hello! Remember comments about the
backbutton, small screens, windows hiding behind other windows
etc. These were thought processes, what did you think they were?
Rabbits?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy


Yes (though in most cases you shouldn't even need the span). See my
reply to Luigi where I went into more detail on this.


No it isn't. Replace a:hover with a:link:hover. This will then only
affect <a> elements that are *both* a link, and being hovered.

Or as I said earlier, a[href]:hover only effect A elements with an
'href' attribute BUT ... IE again is the problem with this one...

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, "Jonathan N. Little"

Or as I said earlier, a[href]:hover only effect A elements with an
'href' attribute BUT ... IE again is the problem with this one...

Whereas a:link:hover *is* supported by IE (IIRC - you've got me doubting
myself now). Easier just to not use <a name=""> in the first place
though.