I want to find out whether the following usage of the "Bookmark"
link type is o.k. An example could be seen at
<http://www.geocities.c om/stanio/more/horoskop.html>. The text is
in Bulgarian and is some kind of entertaining poetical horoscope.
I've used <LINK rel="Bookmark"t o create a meta-TOC for the
document. Reading the definition of the "Bookmark" link type [1] in
the HTML spec I haven't actually got if I'm using it correctly.
[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links>
--
Stanimir
23  2974 
Wed, 28 May 2008 10:50:51 +0200, /Andreas Prilop/:
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>Subject: Indicate document fragments with <LINK rel="Bookmark">
And note: Most (?) browsers don't support this kind of LINK.
At least Lynx, SeaMonkey and Firefox with Link Widgets [1] extension
support it. AFAIK, IE and Safari don't support any LINKs and Opera
has very limited support, IMO.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2933
--
Stanimir
Wed, 28 May 2008 10:50:51 +0200, /Andreas Prilop/:
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>I want to find out whether the following usage of the "Bookmark"
link type is o.k. An example could be seen at
<http://www.geocities.c om/stanio/more/horoskop.html>
No. Use REL="Section" instead. Examples:
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...ilingual1.html
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...onal-text.html
I'm not convinced I should use "Section", either.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links>:
*Section*
Refers to a document serving as a section in a collection of
documents.
The given definition leads me to think the "Section" link gives an
URL for a document serving as starting document of a section of
documents the current one is part of. Something like:
Start
Section 1
Subsection 1.1
Subsection 1.2
Section 2
Subsection 2.1
Subsection 2.2
Subsection 2.3 (current)
Section 3
Subsection 3.1
Both "Bookmark" and "Section" definitions are equally ambiguous for
use as in-document bookmarks for me, but this may be just because
I'm not native English speaker and I can't get it right.
--
Stanimir
Scripsit Stanimir Stamenkov:
I've used <LINK rel="Bookmark"t o create a meta-TOC for the
document.
I think that's rather far from the intended use of rel="Bookmark", which
is rather obscure. Moreover, for most users, such <linkelements are
useless. Even if they use a browser that technically supports them, they
may not notice them or may not understand what they are for.
A simple alternative is to include a real ToC as a list of links (<a>
elements). You e.g. use CSS to make a small box on the side of the
normal content.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Scripsit Stanimir Stamenkov:
I didn't want to include a TOC in the content, but I've found such
links greatly help viewing the document in the Lynx browser -
Don't you think the great majority that does not use such browsers would
benefit from the links, too? You can achieve that simply by using links,
i.e. <aelements. If desired, you can suppress them on printing, using
simple CSS.
The <linkelement is (except for the specific use of referring to an
external stylesheet) dead for most practical purposes. It was never
properly designed (as the vagueness of the "specifications " indicates),
and browsers didn't implement it. "We asked them to implement <link>,
but they misheard it as <blink>."
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
On 29 May, 15:26, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tu t.fiwrote:
Don't you think the great majority that does not use such browsers would
benefit from the links, too?
No! That's one of the key principles of the W3C's view of web design.
If it's not _harmful_ to other users who don't support a feature (and
this could include inflicting excessive volume upon them) then there's
no reason why a feature should be avoided, just because only a few can
benefit from it.
If a feature is _necessary_ to make use of a site (either navigation,
or more frequently JavaScript) then the site overall should provide
some alternative means by which to achieve the same result. This
doesn't mean quite the same thing as literal duplication of a feature
though. It's certainly not a reason to avoid features with partial
support. Note that I wrote "site" here, not "page". Alternative pages
with different approaches are a valid technique, where appropriate.
In the extreme case, this often gives rise to an "accessibil ity
ghetto" or a "print-friendly page", both of which are bogosities
perpetrated by the semi-clued. Although we wish to support the same
notions and end-results, these are rarely valid reasons to split the
"accessible " or "printable" content's implementation from the
mainstream content. The techniques of web design allow both to be
incorporated together with automatic fallbacks within the same page.
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Andy Dingley wrote:
If it's not _harmful_ to other users who don't support a feature (and
^^^ ^^^^^
this could include inflicting excessive volume upon them) then there's
no reason why a feature should be avoided, just because only a few can
^^ ^^^^^^^
benefit from it.
There are too many negations in this sentence.
I do not understand it.
Write plain English!
Thank you!
Scripsit Andy Dingley:
On 29 May, 15:26, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tu t.fiwrote:
>Don't you think the great majority that does not use such browsers
would benefit from the links, too?
No!
Are you saying that the great majority that does not use browsers that
support <link(for example, all IE users) would not benefit from links
to different parts of a page - in circumstances where links are supposed
to be useful to Lynx users?
That's one of the key principles of the W3C's view of web design.
Which one? The right one, or the wrong one?
If it's not _harmful_ to other users who don't support a feature (and
this could include inflicting excessive volume upon them) then there's
no reason why a feature should be avoided, just because only a few can
benefit from it.
I do not disagree with Andreas Prilops comment on too many negations
there. But anyway, what is really your answer to my question? Are you
saying that it is better to implement a feature in a manner that is
useful to a fraction of users only, when there is an extremely simple
and obvious manner to make it accessible to all?
In the extreme case, this often gives rise to an "accessibil ity
ghetto" or a "print-friendly page", both of which are bogosities
perpetrated by the semi-clued.
Aren't you digressing a bit? The issue was about making it possible to
access different parts of a page quickly, and there is a simple approach
that is maximally accessible (and requires no separate "print-friendly"
page).
As a rule, a page that is longer than, say, two printed pages should
have a table of content. This is essential not only to internal
navigation but also for giving a quick idea of the content of the page.
And a list of links (<aelements) is superior to all hackish or
too-theoretical alternative approaches.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
On 29 May, 16:42, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tu t.fiwrote:
Scripsit Andy Dingley:
On 29 May, 15:26, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tu t.fiwrote:
Don't you think the great majority that does not use such browsers
would benefit from the links, too?
No!
Are you saying that the great majority that does not use browsers that
support <link(for example, all IE users) would not benefit from links
to different parts of a page - in circumstances where links are supposed
to be useful to Lynx users?
Of course not, that's what I referred to in the next para.
The point is that these techniques aren't _exclusive_. Therefore I
can use a useful technique whenever it's useful for _anyone_, without
limiting myself to only techniques that everyone can use.
If I also need to make the site usable and accessible by providing
alternatives for these users, then I should provide those
_in_addition_.
Are you
saying that it is better to implement a feature in a manner that is
useful to a fraction of users only, when there is an extremely simple
and obvious manner to make it accessible to all?
That would depend on the relative merits of each technique. If there
is an equally good and accessible technique, then by all means use it.
If there is a better and less accessible technique (i.e. <link>) then
use that. Support the platforms needing accessible methods as
necessary, but don't avoid other techniques just because not everyone
has access.
In the extreme case, this often gives rise to an "accessibil ity
ghetto" or a "print-friendly page", both of which are bogosities
perpetrated by the semi-clued.
Aren't you digressing a bit?
No. Merely reminding the reader that techniques can be combined on the
same page, there's no need for "shadow sites", one with and one
without. This bogus technique is popular amongst people who think it's
needed for decent printing, which is thus a familiar example. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: FAQ server |
last post by:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - I have <a href="javascript:somefunction()"what ... ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever the rest of your question, this is generally a very bad
use of the javascript pseudo protocol. It was designed so that a
function could return a new page. For example:
`` javascript:"<p>Hello</p>" ''.
Using it simply to...
|
by: matheussousuke |
last post by:
Hello, I'm using tiny MCE plugin on my oscommerce and it is inserting my website URL when I use insert image function in the emails.
The goal is: Make it send the email with the URL http://mghospedagem.com/images/controlpanel.jpg
instead of
http://mghospedagem.comhttp://mghospedagem.com/images/controlpanel.jpg
As u see, there's the website URL before the image URL.
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
| | |
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| |
