Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NH] Link to Bookmark Opens Page Unexpectedly

Expand Messages
  • Greg Chapman
    Hi Ray, ... Not from where I look. The anchor (duplicated!) is above the table. Why not add an ID to the appropriate table row rather than use an anchor:
    Message 1 of 8 , May 17 4:19 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Ray,

      On 18 May 12 00:02 Ray Shapp <rayshapp@...> said:
      > The link is:
      >
      > http://asterism.org/events/events01.htm#starparty2012-05-19
      >
      >
      > In both browsers, the page opens about nine lines above the line
      > where the anchor is embedded.

      Not from where I look. The anchor (duplicated!) is above the table.

      Why not add an ID to the appropriate table row rather than use an
      anchor:

      <tr id="starparty2012-05-19">

      Greg
    • Marcelo Bastos
      ... Well, first thing thing to try is to validate the page. And... ... http://validator.w3.org throws an error PRECISELY on your anchor: Validation Output: 1
      Message 2 of 8 , May 17 4:37 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Interviewed by CNN on 17/05/2012 20:02, Ray Shapp told the world:
        > To All,
        >
        > MSIE v9.0 and Firefox v12.0 both open one of my web pages slightly above
        > the location of an embedded anchor.
        >
        > The link is:
        >
        > http://asterism.org/events/events01.htm#starparty2012-05-19
        >
        >
        > In both browsers, the page opens about nine lines above the line where the
        > anchor is embedded. That's acceptable, but I'm wondering if that's normal
        > behavior. IOW are the browsers showing me a bit of the page above the
        > anchor so as to show me the context, or is this happening because I've
        > embedded a third-party calendar at the top of the page.
        >
        > Did I code the embedded bookmark incorrectly or am I addressing it
        > incorrectly? Or is there some other issue I'm missing?
        >
        >
        Well, first thing thing to try is to validate the page. And...

        ... http://validator.w3.org throws an error PRECISELY on your anchor:


        Validation Output: 1 Error

        Error /Line 75, Column 30/: document type does not allow element "A" here

        |<a name="starparty2012-05-19"*>*</a>|

        ✉ <http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html?uri=;errmsg_id=64#errormsg>

        The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed.
        This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a
        "style" element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two
        elements that overlap (which is not allowed).


        Furthermore, you have the SAME anchor repeated ABOVE the "Solar Viewing
        at Trailside." Look for the line:

        <a name="starparty2012-05-19" id="starparty2012-05-19"></a>

        Which is exactly where the browsers are opening the link. That is, they are looking for the first occurrence of the anchor, and finding it there.

        As a general guideline, <a name="..."> anchors are something to wean oneself off. Try using 'id="..."' for anchors, they tend to be much more versatile.


        --

        MCBastos

        This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
        use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

        --
        MCBastos

        This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.
      • Axel Berger
        ... In principle yes, in practice I do just the opposite, but that s because backwards compatibilty to even the oldest browsers without loss of main content is
        Message 3 of 8 , May 17 4:46 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Marcelo Bastos wrote:
          > As a general guideline, <a name="..."> anchors are something
          > to wean oneself off. Try using 'id="..."' for anchors, they
          > tend to be much more versatile.

          In principle yes, in practice I do just the opposite, but that's because
          backwards compatibilty to even the oldest browsers without loss of main
          content is important to me. If you don't mind Netscape 4 not finding the
          ancor, ID is fine.

          Axel

          --
          Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
          Johann-Häck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
          D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
          Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
        • Greg Chapman
          Hi Axel, ... I take it the audience for your site is a computing museum. That browser must be getting on for 20 years old. The principle of backwards
          Message 4 of 8 , May 17 5:16 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Axel,

            On 18 May 12 00:46 Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> said:
            > If you don't mind Netscape 4 not finding the
            > ancor, ID is fine.

            I take it the audience for your site is a computing museum. That
            browser must be getting on for 20 years old.

            The principle of backwards compatibility is fair enough, but in the
            real world there comes a point when it's time to move on. Do you keep
            a sabre-toothed tiger chained up in your back yard to keep the wooly
            mamoths away? No doubt you'll tell me it's very effective as you have
            seen any mamoths near your house since you got the tiger.

            :-)

            Greg
          • Axel Berger
            ... I d like to contradict heatedly, but in this case you re probably right - page anchors are not essential and breaking them is merely inconvenient, not
            Message 5 of 8 , May 17 7:20 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Greg Chapman wrote:
              > but in the
              > real world there comes a point when it's time to move on.

              I'd like to contradict heatedly, but in this case you're probably right
              - page anchors are not essential and breaking them is merely
              inconvenient, not disabling.

              Still, as I use Netscape 4.8 for writing this post and won't change
              anytime soon, and as long as Netscape 4.8 is my standard test
              environment for no script, no CSS, no graphics, I won't stop catering
              for it in my own pages.

              > as you have
              > seen any mamoths near your house since you got the tiger.

              Haven't had a decent mammoth steak in ages. It's got so bad, I don't
              even keep hafted Levallois points in readiness any more. But I read that
              for delicate surgery ceramic knives make a comeback and I believe in
              special cases flint or obsidian is preferable to synthetic ceramics.

              Axel
            • Greg Chapman
              Hi Axel, ... In that case I understand. I d probably still use Lynx for that purpose! Greg
              Message 6 of 8 , May 18 1:55 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Axel,

                On 18 May 12 03:20 Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> said:
                > Still, as I use Netscape 4.8 for writing this post and won't change
                > anytime soon, and as long as Netscape 4.8 is my standard test
                > environment for no script, no CSS, no graphics, I won't stop
                > catering for it in my own pages.

                In that case I understand. I'd probably still use Lynx for that
                purpose!

                Greg
              • Ray Shapp
                Hi Greg, Axel, and Marcelo, Greg and Axel, you break me up! Marcelo, I thought I did validate the page. When I view source in Firefox, I see an HTML Validator
                Message 7 of 8 , May 18 1:33 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Greg, Axel, and Marcelo,

                  Greg and Axel, you break me up!

                  Marcelo, I thought I did validate the page. When I view source in Firefox,
                  I see an HTML Validator screen that shows 0 errors and 0 warnings. Maybe I
                  tweaked the page after I validated it.

                  Bottom line: With your help (along with a good laugh), I'm now using ID in
                  the table row, and the link behaves as expected, but not tested in any of
                  last century's browsers.

                  Many thanks!

                  Ray Shapp


                  On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Greg Chapman <gregchapmanuk@...>wrote:

                  > **
                  >
                  >
                  > Hi Ray,
                  >
                  >
                  > On 18 May 12 00:02 Ray Shapp <rayshapp@...> said:
                  > > The link is:
                  > >
                  > > http://asterism.org/events/events01.htm#starparty2012-05-19
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > In both browsers, the page opens about nine lines above the line
                  > > where the anchor is embedded.
                  >
                  > Not from where I look. The anchor (duplicated!) is above the table.
                  >
                  > Why not add an ID to the appropriate table row rather than use an
                  > anchor:
                  >
                  > <tr id="starparty2012-05-19">
                  >
                  > Greg
                  >
                  > __.
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.