<a href="#raleigh">Raleigh NC</a>

In creating a dynamic page with some static content, ie, the list of
city names is standard HTML encoding. When I click on the link,
I see the page reload itself instead of jumping to the content where
<a name="raleigh"></a>. Any suggestions on how to get around
this?

Specifically the page I'm working with...

http://microcosmotalk.com/live/categ...g+Pool+Builder

Thanks.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.

re: <a href="#raleigh">Raleigh NC</a>

Jim Carlock wrote:[color=blue]
> In creating a dynamic page with some static content, ie, the list of
> city names is standard HTML encoding. When I click on the link,
> I see the page reload itself instead of jumping to the content where
> <a name="raleigh"></a>. Any suggestions on how to get around
> this?
>[/color]

Just kill the <base href="..." /> tag...


JW

re: <a href="#raleigh">Raleigh NC</a>

"Janwillem Borleffs" posted a reply:[color=blue]
> Just kill the <base href="..." /> tag...[/color]

That was easy. I'm wondering why some companies apply that
technique?

Thanks for pointing that out, Janwillem.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.

Jim Carlock asked:[color=blue]
> In creating a dynamic page with some static content, ie, the list of
> city names is standard HTML encoding. When I click on the link,
> I see the page reload itself instead of jumping to the content where
> <a name="raleigh"></a>. Any suggestions on how to get around
> this?
>[/color]

re: <a href="#raleigh">Raleigh NC</a>

Jim Carlock:
[color=blue]
> I'm wondering why some companies apply that technique?[/color]

The BASE element lets you make the base URL explicit: it trumps the
other two ways of establishing a base URL. For example, you could
include it in so-called mirror pages in which every relative URL should
point to an external host; or certain error pages (e.g., 404s), where
the requested URL is different to the current URL; or a text/html part
of an e-mail, which lacks an implicit base URL.

I see no reason in theory to include a BASE href whose value is
equivalent (in some sense) to the base URL as it would be established
by RFC3986. I can only imagine that, if it was included deliberately,
it was meant as a workaround to a bug.

--
Jock