validation

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Richard, Oct 9, 2003.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    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?
     
    Richard, Oct 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    rf, Oct 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    m Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > 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.

    --
    m
     
    m, Oct 9, 2003
    #3
  4. Richard

    Richard Guest

    rf wrote:


    > "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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 :)


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


    >> what else can be used to
    >> obtain the same effect?


    > What effect?


    Pay attention young grasshopper.

    >> Or another type of declaration that would still allow the attribute
    >> and

    > css?


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


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


    > Cheers
    > Richard.
     
    Richard, Oct 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Richard

    Richard Guest

    m wrote:

    > Richard wrote:
    >> 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.


    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.


    > --
    > m
     
    Richard, Oct 9, 2003
    #5
  6. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
    news:...
    > rf wrote:
    >
    >
    > > "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> 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 :)

    >
    > 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?

    > >> what else can be used to
    > >> obtain the same effect?

    >
    > > What effect?

    >
    > Pay attention young grasshopper.


    Condescending bastard.

    > >> Or another type of declaration that would still allow the attribute
    > >> and

    > > css?

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

    >
    > 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.
     
    rf, Oct 9, 2003
    #6
  7. Richard

    Mark Parnell Guest

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

    > rf wrote:
    >
    >> "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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 :)

    >
    > 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.

    >
    >>> what else can be used to
    >>> obtain the same effect?

    >
    >> What effect?

    >
    > Pay attention young grasshopper.
    >


    To what, exactly? See my comments above re: age.

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

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

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Oct 9, 2003
    #7
  8. Richard

    brucie Guest

    In post <>
    Richard said...

    > 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.



    --
    brucie.
    09/October/2003 03:00:47 pm
     
    brucie, Oct 9, 2003
    #8
  9. Richard

    brucie Guest

    In post <>
    brucie said...

    >> 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.


    i just noticed the 4.0. use 4.01

    --
    brucie.
    09/October/2003 03:03:38 pm
     
    brucie, Oct 9, 2003
    #9
  10. In article <>, anom@anom says...
    > 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.

    --
    Hywel I do not eat quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Oct 9, 2003
    #10
  11. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    rf, Oct 9, 2003
    #11
  12. Richard

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Sometime around Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:28:23 GMT, rf is reported to have
    stated:

    >
    > "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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. ;-)

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Oct 9, 2003
    #12
  13. Richard

    brucie Guest

    In post <fr5kdwqv29p0$>
    Mark Parnell said...

    >> 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. ;-)


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

    --
    brucie.
    09/October/2003 04:52:10 pm
     
    brucie, Oct 9, 2003
    #13
  14. Richard

    rf Guest

    "brucie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In post <fr5kdwqv29p0$>
    > Mark Parnell said...
    >
    > >> 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. ;-)

    >
    > 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.
     
    rf, Oct 9, 2003
    #14
  15. Richard

    brucie Guest

    In post <ZJ7hb.142733$>
    rf said...

    >> 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.


    i'm yet to see your roo do anything other than display its fun giggly
    bits. my concrete guard giraffe is more animated.


    --
    brucie.
    09/October/2003 05:24:26 pm
     
    brucie, Oct 9, 2003
    #15
  16. Richard

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:

    >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

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Oct 9, 2003
    #16
  17. Richard

    Micah Cowan Guest

    "Richard" <anom@anom> writes:

    > rf wrote:
    >
    >
    > > "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> 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 :)

    >
    > 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.

    > >> what else can be used to
    > >> obtain the same effect?

    >
    > > What effect?

    >
    > Pay attention young grasshopper.
    >
    > >> Or another type of declaration that would still allow the attribute
    > >> and

    > > css?

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

    >
    > 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
     
    Micah Cowan, Oct 11, 2003
    #17
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Colin Mackay
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,694
    Colin Mackay
    Jun 25, 2003
  2. Libs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,498
  3. Colin Basterfield

    Web form validation vs object validation

    Colin Basterfield, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    427
    Tommy
    Nov 29, 2003
  4. Matt
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    4,106
    Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
    Jan 30, 2004
  5. Lucas Tam
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,113
    Lucas Tam
    Feb 26, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page