[ntp:questions] Re: Busted link on http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/index.html

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Sat Oct 11 15:15:40 UTC 2003


David Woolley wrote:
> 
> 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
> > both.
> 
> 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
> id attributes.)

I did as I was told; the links do parse correctly with HTML 4.01
Transitional and work just fine with IE in XP. The look pretty but do
nothing in NS. There might well be a workaround not evident in the
documentation I have; however, with many hundreds of pages and thousands
of files scattered over 450 megabytes in the web collection here, I'm
not about to launch a rescue mission in the near future.

> 
> 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.

It isn't Microsoft that told me to do it; it was Adobe. Frankly, I get
really frosty in the browser wars. I do things one way and IE folks get
mad at me; do it the other way and NS folks get mad at me. The NTP
documentation is/was not a trivial project over the years and is offered
by me as a contribution to our collective good. If folks consider my
style stubborn, that's what you get and you should choose another
documentation source. If you consider the style inconsistent with modern
thinking, blame Microsoft and Adobe and I make no apologies whatsoever.

Dave

[It's important that folks see the complete exchange in order to
understand the issues here, but the dingfangled fascist news system here
won't allow me to include all the message fragments unless the reply
text is bigger than the fragments. So, please forgive the flame/excess
baggage here, but I have to war the fascists]

the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 0123456789



More information about the questions mailing list