E-mail List Archives
Thread: RE: skip to content, where and how many?
Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)
From: jukka.korpela
Date: Thu, Feb 28 2002 11:47PM
Subject: RE: skip to content, where and how many?
No previous message | Next message →
Jim Thatcher wrote:
> I think many don't realize that <A name="skiptarget"></A> is just fine.
I'm afraid too many people think it's just fine.
> No content is necessary.
So how are user agents supposed to implement elements with empty content?
Saying nothing, showing nothing, is the most obvious approach.
Admittedly, for <a name="..."></a>, the situation is somewhat different.
But user agents have been reported to ignore such elements. Odd, in a way,
but why take unnecessary risks? Besides, it's illogical.
Normally
<h2><a name="...">...</a></h2>
or similar construct with a lower level heading is. Even more logically,
one would use <div id="...">...</div> to specify the _part_ of a document
referred to (not just a starting location), but this has more limited
browser support.
--
Jukka K. Korpela, erityisasiantuntija / senior adviser
TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehitt
From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Fri, Mar 01 2002 7:46AM
Subject: RE: skip to content, where and how many?
← Previous message | No next message
It is perfectly logical to have an empty anchor specifying a position in a
page to which a link can jump. When you require that the anchor enclose text
of the content, then it has to be coded for every page and is not part of
the template. There is no "implementation" of a Local target for a link
beyond being a position in the document. The user agents I use implement
this just fine, namely, when I follow a link to that empty anchor the page
is repositioned with that appropriate part of the document at the top.
Jim
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Accessibility Consulting
http://jimthatcher.com
512-306-0931