html: anchor problem

hello everyone
i have a frameset with 2 frames: links.html and contents.html. there are several anchors in contents.html. so when the user choose some link i want contents.html to start from a spesific anchor according to that pressed link. that means i want contents.html to start further down on the page.

i guess in links.html it should be something like this:

<a href="contents.html#anchor-one" target="right">anchor-one</a>

in contents.html i think it is:

<br id="anchor-one"> or
<a href="contents.html#anchor-one"></a> or <a name... etc.


so do you have any idea how to do this and am i in a right direction with this?

thank you in advance

<a href="contents.html#anchor-one" target="right">anchor-one</a>

Correct.



in contents.html it should be:

<A name="anchor-one"></a>

yes, thank you very much, now it works. i had tested that already, but i guess the problem was that that a-tag was outside the cell, because i'm using table. but it was much easier to solve this when i knew that the code was right. thanks

I think the ID thing should have worked also, don't know why it didn't. Maybe it was a browser bug.

Aren't "name" and "id" supposed to be the same thing? I thought XHTML brought in "id", but HTML uses "name" - so at the moment both are 'supposed' to work.

I think this is right - so perhaps the use of "id" wasn't recognised. As Rick said, a browser bug...?

HD

I think (from memory) ID must always be individual, but name can be the same for things like checkboxes, etc. But yeah ID is the way to go for XHTML.

XHTML is one mountain sized pain in the ass. :mad:

So if you want compatibility for both HTML 4 and XHTML 1 you'd do
<a name="anchor-one" id="anchor-one"></a>

XHTML is cool, might kick all those IE-only-because-of-poorly-written-code sites in the azz!

I'm switching to XHTML Strict for all my personal pages...

Yeah it's not really that hard. I've been using strict for quite a while now, and I did have my site in XHTML 1.1, but the W3C scrapped the lang attribute in favour of the xml:lang attribute, but most browsers don't seem to suport that so I switched back to XHTML 1.0 strict for now.

What is the exact difference between Transitional and Strict?

Mainly that transitional contains presentation markup rather than just content. Strict has only that, and relies on CSS to do the presentation. But if you use transitional you are supposed to write your page in strict, then add presentation tags to make your pages compatible with older browsers, if you need it that is ;)

So <b>, <i>, <font> and such are not supported by strict?

I think think <b> and <i> might be (although you should usually use <strong> and <em> as they work better in text-only browsers), but I'm pretty sure font isn't.

I don't know anything about XHTML, but hasn't <font> been deprecated for awhile now?

And where can I read up about XHTML and learn wise things?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Hobo
I don't know anything about XHTML, but hasn't <font> been deprecated for awhile now?

---

Yes, FONT tags have been depreciated in favor of using styles. Although most browsers will still support it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Hobo
And where can I read up about XHTML and learn wise things?

---

Check out the Web Links at http://devnewt.ionichost.com I know there's one in there to a site about XHTML.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Hobo
I don't know anything about XHTML, but hasn't <font> been deprecated for awhile now?

And where can I read up about XHTML and learn wise things?

---

The best place for online tutorials:

http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/

Or http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ if you don't mind reading some of the technical waffle ;)