[ntp:questions] Re: Busted link on http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/index.html
david at djwhome.demon.co.uk
Sat Oct 11 12:26:53 UTC 2003
In article <3F878FA6.C9D08E5E at udel.edu>, David L. Mills <mills at udel.edu> wrote:
> The links work in IE, but not in NS. There is no common way to satisfy
This is not true of validly coded fragment links. Such links work in all
versions of IE that I've ever tried. I've just verified this on a fully
patched IE 5.5 on Windows 98, but I'm pretty sure I have successfully
used them back to IE 3 and maybe even IE 2, including NT versions.
This is with the backwards compatible "a name=" formulation.
> worley at theworld.com wrote:
> > problem is the headings put an extraneous # at the beginning of the
> > id:
> > <h4 id="#intro">Introduction</h4>
Yes. This is a domain error. # is not a legal character in any
id attribute in any version of [X]HTML and will, I believe, be thrown
out by any formal validation process. (Note that I actually tested
with the legacy "<a name=" construct - I'd have to reboot back to
Windows and write a test case to check whether IE is broken for
I even went as far as raising this as a formal bug report, but it was
vetoed by Dave Mills. I'm afraid you will find that David Mills is often
very stubborn and inconsistent (he's quite happy with the concept that
Microsoft define HTML in violation of W3C standards because IE is the
dominant implementation of something claiming to be HTML, but not happy
with the idea that the Windows 2000 implementation of what it claims to
be "SNTP" could become the de facto official definition, even though it
may be the most widely used version of something making that claim).
I'm afraid you just have to live with the resulting decisions if you
want to be involved with NTP. Don't expect the HTML to be fixed as
a result of this debate.
> > <h4 id="intro">Introduction</h4>
This is valid, although bad practice for universal documentation because
it requires HTML 4.0 support, and IE, the dominant browser, is not HTML 4.0
compliant, so why should you insist on browsers being HTML 4.0 compliant
in this one respect). I have a feeling that id is a reserved attribute in
XML, so imminent migration to XML could only be used as a justification for
breaking backwards compatibility if valid syntax were used.
One person provide a perl script to fix the web pages, but this didn't
really help me at the time, as I was accessing them off the internet,
not from a local, edittable, copy.
Apologies for the mixed top/bottom posting, but it was easier to
deal with both levels of the thread in one that way, especially when
the original was bottom over-quoted.
More information about the questions