Why does named anchor fail?

[jim039845]

The link looks like this:

http://www.postpositive.net/library.php#cat6

The target looks like this:

<a name="cat6">cat6</a>

The link resides on this page:

http://www.postpositive.net/wp02/?cat=7

The FIRST time the link is clicked, you end up at the WRONG POSITION on the
page; SUBSEQUENT clicks will take you to the CORRECT POSITION (you can also
get to the correct position if you hit refresh after arriving on the new
page the first visit).

Browser cache needs to be cleared to repeat the error after the first visit.

I've tried adding 800px of margin-bottom and/or padding-bottom, and also
using transparent spacers on the bottom of the page, but no luck...

Is there some CSS trick to work around this problem?

The problem exists in both IE and FF

Other suggestions?

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, jim039845
<ji*******@hotmail.comdeclared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

The FIRST time the link is clicked, you end up at the WRONG POSITION on the
page; SUBSEQUENT clicks will take you to the CORRECT POSITION (you can also
get to the correct position if you hit refresh after arriving on the new
page the first visit).

Adding the relevant dimensions of the images in the HTML would certainly
help - the problem is that the browser jumps to that point on the page
once the page itself loads, but then when the images load the page is
rearranged because it doesn't know in advance how much space to reserve
for the images.

IIRC there was a discussion about this only recently - I think it was
over in alt.html.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[jim039845]

Adding the relevant dimensions of the images in the HTML would certainly

help - the problem is that the browser jumps to that point on the page
once the page itself loads, but then when the images load the page is
rearranged because it doesn't know in advance how much space to reserve
for the images.

Yes!! That was it!! Problem solved!!

The solution was to add dimensions for every image on the page - even spacer
images - like so: <img
src="http://www.postpositive.net/images/spacer-horizontal-10px.gif"
width="1" height="10" alt="">

Also, making sure the page validates against the W3C HTML validator is a
good idea....

IIRC there was a discussion about this only recently - I think it was
over in alt.html.

I guess misery loves company.

As far as I know, width and height dimensions are supposed to be "optional"
(according to the W3C spec). So much for optional...

[Harlan Messinger]

jim039845 wrote:

As far as I know, width and height dimensions are supposed to be "optional"
(according to the W3C spec). So much for optional...

Just because something's optional doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference!

[Rik]

jim039845 wrote:

>Adding the relevant dimensions of the images in the HTML would
certainly help - the problem is that the browser jumps to that point
on the page once the page itself loads, but then when the images
load the page is rearranged because it doesn't know in advance how
much space to reserve for the images.

Yes!! That was it!! Problem solved!!

The solution was to add dimensions for every image on the page - even
spacer images - like so: <img
src="http://www.postpositive.net/images/spacer-horizontal-10px.gif"
width="1" height="10" alt="">

Also, making sure the page validates against the W3C HTML validator
is a good idea....

>IIRC there was a discussion about this only recently - I think it was
over in alt.html.

I guess misery loves company.

As far as I know, width and height dimensions are supposed to be
"optional" (according to the W3C spec). So much for optional...

Yup, but it's exactly their reason for existing. Not to resize images, for
which it's often abused, but to give the browser a hint how large the image
is before loading, so the page isn't rearranged on an image load. Not always
necessary, so optional, but in this case very welcome :-).

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "jim039845"
<ji*******@hotmail.comwriting in
news:ZL******************************@comcast.com:

>
The solution was to add dimensions for every image on the page - even
spacer images - like so: <img
src="http://www.postpositive.net/images/spacer-horizontal-10px.gif"
width="1" height="10" alt="">

You really shouldn't be using spacer images. There are much more cleaner
methods. Use tables for tabular data only, and position elements with
CSS, not tables and spacer images. You will be happier as a developer,
search engine bots will have less to sift through, and your visitors will
be happy because there will be less download time with a more accessible
page.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <J9******************************@comcast.com>, jim039845
<ji*******@hotmail.comwrites

>http://www.postpositive.net/wp02/?cat=7

Blank, with Javascript unavailable.

img tag not closed:

<img src="http://www.postpositive.org/images/illuminati4.gif"
width="367" height="400" alt="">

You have several links wit the text "Read the rest of this entry", each
to different targets, and no unique, distinguishing title attribute.

--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>