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

can't find my answer on internet

Expand Messages
  • Adrien Verlee
    For footnotes I use: [1] This code is for IN the text. And: [1] This is the footnote at the end of
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 29 8:59 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      For footnotes I use:
      <a name="top1" href="#v1">[1]</a> This code is for IN the text. And:
      <a name="v1" href="#top1">[1]</a> This is the footnote at the end of the
      text, so the reader can go back.

      Someone points me out that this code is deprecated for XHTML strict 1.1
      But I use XHTML transitional 1.0 (This should, due to external factors).

      He suggesting this:
      <a id="top1" href="#v1">[1]</a> (IN the text) and <a id="v1"
      href="#top1">[1]</a> (at the end), thus replacing "name" with "id".

      This code is a little shorter, and that is good.
      But he speaks about xhtml strict 1.1. Makes that a fundamental
      difference with xhtml transitional 1.0?

      Someone who knows?

      --
      adrien
      - Ongedeelde informatie = verloren informatie -
    • Marcelo Bastos
      ... First, forget about XHTML 1.1. It didn t catch on, very few people bothered to configure their webservers correctly to serve it (so they were doing it
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 29 1:08 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Interviewed by CNN on 29/03/2014 12:59, Adrien Verlee told the world:
        > For footnotes I use:
        > <a name="top1" href="#v1">[1]</a> This code is for IN the text. And:
        > <a name="v1" href="#top1">[1]</a> This is the footnote at the end of the
        > text, so the reader can go back.
        >
        > Someone points me out that this code is deprecated for XHTML strict 1.1
        > But I use XHTML transitional 1.0 (This should, due to external factors).
        >
        > He suggesting this:
        > <a id="top1" href="#v1">[1]</a> (IN the text) and <a id="v1"
        > href="#top1">[1]</a> (at the end), thus replacing "name" with "id".
        >
        > This code is a little shorter, and that is good.
        > But he speaks about xhtml strict 1.1. Makes that a fundamental
        > difference with xhtml transitional 1.0?
        >
        > Someone who knows?
        >
        First, forget about XHTML 1.1. It didn't catch on, very few people
        bothered to configure their webservers correctly to serve it (so they
        were doing it wrong anyway), and nobody cares about it anymore.

        Instead, try aiming for HTML5. A good first step would be to figure out
        what is keeping you from using HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0 in Strict mode. Then
        check the HTML5 documentation; there's a fair chance that whatever is
        the problem, it will be easier to work around it in HTML5 (some of the
        deprecated features in HTML 4.01 Strict got "un-deprecated" in HTML5,
        and also there's a lot of new stuff that can be used to work around
        whatever your need is).

        Note that HTML5 does not have "transitional" mode; it's either compliant
        or it isn't. But there's a lot of tolerance for coding mistakes built
        into the spec -- differently from previous versions, HTML5 actually
        specifies how an user-agent should handle many sorts of syntax errors,
        so the behavior of your page tends to be more consistent from one
        browser to another.

        Second, yes, <a name="whatever"> is being deprecated, because it became
        redundant with the introduction of the "id" parameter (which is allowed
        in pretty much *any* HTML element). So instead of "name", use "id".
        That's it. (But you shouldn't use an <a> element without an "href"
        parameter; if you want only a destination, put the "id" parameter in the
        element that makes the most sense -- usually a <p>, <h1>...<h6> or
        <div>, but it could be anything. If there's no convenient element, just
        add a <div> or <span> around the destination point).

        Third... only use XHTML instead of HTML if you have the webserver
        configured correctly (to serve the pages as "application/xhtml+xml"
        instead of "text/html"); otherwise, there's no point to it and you are
        actually _more_ compliant using HTML. (HTML5 can optionally be served as
        XHTML5, with almost exactly the same syntax).

        --
        MCBastos

        This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.
        -=-=-
        ... Sent from my smoke signals pit.
        * Added by TagZilla 0.7a1 running on Seamonkey 2.25 *
        Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
      • Adrien Verlee
        ... My group does not allow this. Thank you for your explanation on id -- adrien - Ongedeelde informatie = verloren informatie -
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 29 4:34 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Marcelo Bastos schreef op 29/03/2014 21:08:
          > Instead, try aiming for HTML5. A good first step would be to figure out
          > what is keeping you from using HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0 in Strict mode. Then

          My group does not allow this. Thank you for your explanation on "id"
          --
          adrien
          - Ongedeelde informatie = verloren informatie -
        • loro
          Hi Adrien, ... I m not sure this is what you are asking, but you can use id instead of name with any flavour of (X)HTML since HTML 4.0 (but you can t use name
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 29 5:19 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Adrien,

            At 16:59 2014-03-29, you wrote:
            >For footnotes I use:
            ><a name="top1" href="#v1">[1]</a> This code is for IN the text. And:
            ><a name="v1" href="#top1">[1]</a> This is the footnote at the end of the
            >text, so the reader can go back.
            >
            >Someone points me out that this code is deprecated for XHTML strict 1.1
            >But I use XHTML transitional 1.0 (This should, due to external factors).
            >
            >He suggesting this:
            ><a id="top1" href="#v1">[1]</a> (IN the text) and <a id="v1"
            >href="#top1">[1]</a> (at the end), thus replacing "name" with "id".
            >
            >This code is a little shorter, and that is good.
            >But he speaks about xhtml strict 1.1. Makes that a fundamental
            >difference with xhtml transitional 1.0?
            >
            >Someone who knows?

            I'm not sure this is what you are asking, but you can use id instead
            of name with any flavour of (X)HTML since HTML 4.0 (but you can't use
            name in all). The advantage of id is that it doesn't have to be used
            with A. You can use an id with any element as the target for a link.

            Lotta
          • loro
            Ooops! Hadn t sorted the mailbox and didn t see Marcelo already answered. Sorry. Lotta
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 29 5:21 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Ooops! Hadn't sorted the mailbox and didn't see Marcelo already answered.

              Sorry.
              Lotta
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.