Empty a valid or not?

[Neal]

According to the specs
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2), the <a> element
requires an end tag. And so, when we use <A NAME="foo"> in HTML 2.0 to
4.01, it won't validate, it'll want to find the </A> tag.

However, when I write a document containing, say, <a name="foo" /> it
validates in XHTML 1.0.

I'm obviously missing something here, as this confuses me somewhat. Does
the magical / make the empty a element valid? And doesn't this violate
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_3 ?

Nearest I can figure, it's recommending that although the tag will
validate, we still shouldn't do it in case a UA can't handle an empty a
element. Am I on the right track?

If not, feel free to correct me.

[Spartanicus]

Neal <ne*****@spamrc n.com> wrote:

According to the specs
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2), the <a> element
requires an end tag. And so, when we use <A NAME="foo"> in HTML 2.0 to
4.01, it won't validate, it'll want to find the </A> tag.

However, when I write a document containing, say, <a name="foo" /> it
validates in XHTML 1.0.

I'm obviously missing something here, as this confuses me somewhat. Does
the magical / make the empty a element valid? And doesn't this violate
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_3 ?

Nearest I can figure, it's recommending that although the tag will
validate, we still shouldn't do it in case a UA can't handle an empty a
element. Am I on the right track?

Consider dropping the silly construct completely:

<h3 id="s5">Sectio n 5</h3>

--
Spartanicus

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Neal:

According to the specs
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2), the <a> element
requires an end tag. And so, when we use <A NAME="foo"> in HTML 2.0 to
4.01, it won't validate, it'll want to find the </A> tag. However, when I write a document containing, say, <a name="foo" /> it
validates in XHTML 1.0.

In HTML 2.0 to 4.01 you must write "<a ...>...</a>".

In XHTML you can also write "<a ... />".

The rules are different. In XHTML such an added "/" at the end of a
start tag closes the element. That is unknown in older HTML.

Writing "<a ... />" might however not work well in old user agents that
don't know anything about XHTML.

Do look up the specification for XHTML 1.0.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.n et> <http://www.bertilow.co m>

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Spartanicus <[e-mail] > wrote:

Consider dropping the silly construct completely:

<h3 id="s5">Sectio n 5</h3>

It's not silly if you need or wish to have your document working on
Netscape 4 too. The poor browser does not jump to anchors defined by id
attributes, it needs <a name>. Personally I'm moving to id attributes
in new documents, mostly, but with some hesitation.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Jukka K. Korpela:

Spartanicus <[e-mail] > wrote:

Consider dropping the silly construct completely: <h3 id="s5">Sectio n 5</h3>

It's not silly if you need or wish to have your document working on
Netscape 4 too. The poor browser does not jump to anchors defined by id
attributes, it needs <a name>. Personally I'm moving to id attributes
in new documents, mostly, but with some hesitation.

I hesitated too, but finally I moved to "id"s on all of my pages.
I haven't had one single complaint.

I guess it all depends on how important your anchors are, and on how
many of your visitors use Netscape 4.

(Netscape 4 users are probably quite accustomed to things not working
very well by now... Maybe they like pain...)

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.n et> <http://www.bertilow.co m>

[Spartanicus]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:

Consider dropping the silly construct completely:

<h3 id="s5">Sectio n 5</h3>
It's not silly if you need or wish to have your document working on
Netscape 4 too.

That doesn't make the *construct* less silly.
The poor browser does not jump to anchors defined by id
attributes, it needs <a name>.

I know, and don't care.

--
Spartanicus

[CJM]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn******** *************** ******@193.229. 0.31...

It's not silly if you need or wish to have your document working on
Netscape 4 too. The poor browser does not jump to anchors defined by id
attributes, it needs <a name>. Personally I'm moving to id attributes
in new documents, mostly, but with some hesitation.

I tend to use both name & ID; it seems a bit inefficient but different
things need each of them.

In addition to NS4, I need the NAME attribute for ASP forms...

But my Javascript validation code needs the ID...

Chris

[Harlan Messinger]

"Neal" <ne*****@spamrc n.com> wrote in message
news:op******** ******@news.rcn .com...

According to the specs
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2), the <a> element
requires an end tag. And so, when we use <A NAME="foo"> in HTML 2.0 to
4.01, it won't validate, it'll want to find the </A> tag.

However, when I write a document containing, say, <a name="foo" /> it
validates in XHTML 1.0.

I'm obviously missing something here, as this confuses me somewhat. Does
the magical / make the empty a element valid? HTML is HTML and XHTML is XHTML. Each has its own rules, and even though
they have much in common, you can't determine the correctness of an
expression in XHTML document by the rules of HTML.

Also, don't confuse an empty element with the omission of the closing tag.
In HTML,

<p>Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2</p>

has two P elements, neither of which is empty, but the closing tag for the
first is missing. On the other hand, while you have to have a closing tag
for an A element, as you noted, an empty A is perfectly valid:

<a name="foo"></a>

Finally, in XHTML, <tag /> means <tag></tag>. In the case of <a name="foo"
/>, the slash isn't making anything valid. In XHTML as in HTML, an empty A
element is valid, whether written as <a name="foo" /> or as <a
name="foo"></a>.
And doesn't this violate http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_3 ?

Nearest I can figure, it's recommending that although the tag will
validate, we still shouldn't do it in case a UA can't handle an empty a
element. Am I on the right track?

It's not directly about whether a non-XHTML UA can handle an empty element,
but about how it will treat the lack of an explicit closing tag.

1. It's fine to use <tag /> for elements that, in HTML, have no closing tag,
either required or optional. (These are *by definition* empty, but the
emptiness is not directly the issue here.)

For example, if an HTML-only UA reads <input ... />, it will treat it as
<input ...>, which doesn't *have* a closing tag in HTML, so the UA won't
think anything is unusual, and will process the tag correctly.

2. The <tag /> form won't validate for elements that, in HTML, have a
mandatory closing tag.

For example, if an HTML-only UA reads <a name="foo" />, it will treat it as
<a name="foo"> but it won't find a closing tag, which will be an error that
the UA will handle however it normally handles that situation.

3. The result of <tag /> may not be the one intended, in the case of
elements that, in HTML, have an optional closing tag.

For example, if an HTML-only UA reads <p />, it will treat it as <p>, and
will then follow the usual rules for assuming an implicit </p> just before
the start of the next element that can't be nested inside a P element. So

<p />Foo<p>Bar</p>

will be treated as

<p>Foo</p><p>Bar</p>

and not as

<p></p>Foo<p>Bar</p>

[kaeli]

In article <bu************ @ID-209813.news.uni-berlin.de>,
cj*****@yahoo.c o.uk enlightened us with...

I tend to use both name & ID; it seems a bit inefficient but different
things need each of them.

In addition to NS4, I need the NAME attribute for ASP forms...

But my Javascript validation code needs the ID...

Yup, same here.
I use both, and for the same reasons.

Also, on occasion I have need of document.getEle mentsByName and arrays
of elements with the same name. Ids are supposed to be unique, so you
can't have a bunch of radio buttons, checkboxes, etc with the same id.
But they have to have the same name or they won't work right (radio
buttons, anyway).
Sometimes I want checkboxes instead od radio buttons because I want the
user to be able to choose multiples, but I want them with the same name
because they are really the same thing and get stored together server-
side.

--
--
~kaeli~
Suicide is the most sincere form of self-criticism.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Jim Ley]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:05:50 +0100, Bertilo Wennergren
<be******@gmx.n et> wrote:

Do look up the specification for XHTML 1.0.

But please ignore appendix C - or do all of it, including the bits
that require you to use XML PI's for stylesheets and also ensure you
avoid XML PI's.

The result being of course you can't use stylesheets, but that's not
too bad is it?

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/