validation

R

Richard

Using transitional 4.0, if <img src="foo.jpg" name="test"> does not
validate, due to name not being an attribute, what else can be used to
obtain the same effect?
Or another type of declaration that would still allow the attribute and css?
 
R

rf

Richard said:
Using transitional 4.0, if <img src="foo.jpg" name="test"> does not
validate, due to name not being an attribute,

That's correct. The name attribute applies to anchors. You can't just make
things up and expect them to do something :)
what else can be used to
obtain the same effect?

What effect?
Or another type of declaration that would still allow the attribute and
css?

Try letting us know exactly what you are trying do to.

Cheers
Richard.
 
M

m

Richard said:
Using transitional 4.0, if <img src="foo.jpg" name="test"> does not
validate, due to name not being an attribute, what else can be used to
obtain the same effect?
Or another type of declaration that would still allow the attribute and css?
Use ' id="test" ' -- although some older browsers may still prefer
'name' for things like image rollovers in JavaScript.
 
R

Richard

rf wrote:

That's correct. The name attribute applies to anchors. You can't just
make
things up and expect them to do something :)

well young one, there was a time when "name" was accepted as an attribute
with img.

What effect?

Pay attention young grasshopper.
Try letting us know exactly what you are trying do to.

Already have. Obviously your memory lacks to maintain itself beyond a few
minutes.
 
R

Richard

m said:
Use ' id="test" ' -- although some older browsers may still prefer
'name' for things like image rollovers in JavaScript.

Tried that. I get a script error.
The editor I'm using shows a listing of tags and attributes, name is not
shown for img although it works.
The wdg validator doesn't like the <img name> attribute either.
Which is now the only error I get in validating.

 
R

rf

Richard said:
rf wrote:




well young one, there was a time when "name" was accepted as an attribute
with img.

Well it's not in the HTML 4 spec and that was published almost 6 years ago
but then again I suppose you haven't read it yet have you?
Pay attention young grasshopper.

Condescending bastard.
Already have. Obviously your memory lacks to maintain itself beyond a few
minutes.

Not in this thread you bloody haven't. I don't usually read your posts
anyway as they are usually crap. I just wondered why someone was posting to
a thread that is almost a month old. I see why, now, the totally
uninformative subject of "validation" caused my newsreader to lump your post
in with that prior thread.

You, sir, should go out and get some education in netiquette.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Sometime around Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:30:17 -0500, Richard is reported to have
stated:
well young one,

Chances are Richard is older than you (no offense, Richard - rf that is
[this could get confusing!]).
there was a time when "name" was accepted as an attribute
with img.

Really? Which specs is that in? I can't find it in HTML4, 3.2 or even 2.
Pay attention young grasshopper.

To what, exactly? See my comments above re: age.
Already have. Obviously your memory lacks to maintain itself beyond a few
minutes.

Have you? Well I missed it too, then. Considering your entire original
post is quoted here, it must be pretty well hidden, because I still can't
see it.
 
B

brucie

Using transitional 4.0, if <img src="foo.jpg" name="test"> does not
validate, due to name not being an attribute,

'name' is a valid attribute of <img> using either the strict or loose
dtd.
 
H

Hywel Jenkins

rf wrote:

You really are a prime knob, aren't you? You display of sarcasm is
really quite funny when you consder how bloody useless you appear to be
at both web development and taking advice.
 
R

rf

Mark Parnell said:
Sometime around Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:30:17 -0500, Richard is reported to have
stated:

rf wrote:

well young one,

Chances are Richard is older than you (no offense, Richard - rf that is
[this could get confusing!]).

No offence taken at all Mark. In fact you are probably correct. Unless this
other Richard is older than the germanium transistor then I do have a couple
of years on him.

Cheers
Richard.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Sometime around Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:28:23 GMT, rf is reported to have
stated:
Mark Parnell said:
Sometime around Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:30:17 -0500, Richard is reported to
have stated:
well young one,

Chances are Richard is older than you (no offense, Richard - rf that is
[this could get confusing!]).

No offence taken at all Mark. In fact you are probably correct. Unless this
other Richard is older than the germanium transistor then I do have a couple
of years on him.

The germanium transistor, huh? [Gets out calculator] Then that would make
you... nah, won't spoil it for everyone else. ;-)
 
B

brucie

The germanium transistor, huh? [Gets out calculator] Then that would make
you... nah, won't spoil it for everyone else. ;-)

does this mean we can hunt rf down, have him stuffed and sell him to a
museum?
 
R

rf

brucie said:
The germanium transistor, huh? [Gets out calculator] Then that would make
you... nah, won't spoil it for everyone else. ;-)

does this mean we can hunt rf down, have him stuffed and sell him to a
museum?

Be carefull. I've got a guard roo.

Cheers
Richard.
 
S

Steve Pugh

Richard said:
Using transitional 4.0, if <img src="foo.jpg" name="test"> does not
validate, due to name not being an attribute, what else can be used to
obtain the same effect?
Or another type of declaration that would still allow the attribute and css?

1. Use id instead of name
2. Use a more recent version of HTML.
3. Use the image's position within the images[] array

Depending on various factors two out of those three are problematic is
some browsers. As you like to do you own work I'll let you find out
for yourself which two those are.

Steve
 
M

Micah Cowan

Richard said:
rf wrote:




well young one, there was a time when "name" was accepted as an attribute
with img.

Chapter and verse, please. Hm, lessee (bored, so here
goes)... Not in HTML 4. Not in "ISO HTML". Not in HTML 3.2. Not
in HTML 2.0. You gonna tell me I'll find it in "HTML 1.0"? ;-)

BTW, dunno about this NG, but in many your failure to provide
meaningful contact info (read, e-mail address) is considered
rude. But reading the rest of your post, that's evidently no
concern to you.
Pay attention young grasshopper.


Already have. Obviously your memory lacks to maintain itself beyond a few
minutes.

I'm sorry. Obviously we must have become temporarily blind
partway through your message, and missed wherever you explained
what the hell you expected a name attribute within IMG to do,
exactly. If you would be so kind as to point out the exact phrase
wherein you illuminated us in this matter, it would be extremely
helpful. A thousand pardons for our poor eyesight.

FWIW, insulting people who attempt to give you helpful input is
not likely to obtain an answer to your puzzle any more
quickly. Courtesy is highly prized (yet distressingly rare) on
the Net.

-Micah
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top