Help Request about 4.01 Strict

Of course my visitor can choose to open any of my links in a new window.

However for certain links I wish to force it to open in a new window. It is
part of the design of my site. I do not understand what thought process is
used by people to decide they have a mandate to dictate that I cannot do
this on my own site.

.. Ed

Mark Parnell wrote in message
news:7hcuv8ep0h86.dlg (AT) markparnell (DOT) com.au...
...
IOW, you don't do it in your page, your visitor chooses
to do it (or not) when browsing your site...

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
<dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> declared in alt.html:

span id="something">Text</span
and a link such as
webpagename.htm#something
will still work?

Yes (though in most cases you shouldn't even need the span). See my
reply to Luigi where I went into more detail on this.

Not "instead". It is already there.

No it isn't. Replace a:hover with a:link:hover. This will then only
affect <a> elements that are *both* a link, and being hovered.

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

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
<dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> declared in alt.html:

However for certain links I wish to force it to open in a new window.

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_do_I_force

It is
part of the design of my site.

No, new windows are a function of the browser, and as such are under the
control of the user.

I do not understand what thought process is
used by people to decide they have a mandate to dictate that I cannot do
this on my own site.

If you want to use *your browser controls* to open new windows when
browsing your site, feel free. Just don't force that choice on your
other visitors, since you have no way of knowing their preference.

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

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
<dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> declared in alt.html:

Of course my visitor can choose to open any of my links in a new window.

BTW: Please don't post upside down.
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

This will help:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

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

Ed Mulroy wrote:

Perhaps you need: text-decoration: none; in your
hover style? ...

No, I don't want that. The a:hover is as I want it. I do not want to
discard behavior that I worked to achieve because Firefox decides to
decorate a non-link as if it were a link. It decorates acronym items also
although not in any way that you can control or turn off.

Then change it. S'far as I know, IE and all the rest treat
an <a> hover the same...

As I have described, Firefox treats it differently for
a name=

a name="some_name"></a>Description
..and nothing to click on.

Actually it is IE that flubbing up here, an 'A 'element whether it is an
anchor or a link is *still* an 'A' element. So...

A:hover should apply to markup as <a name="anAnchor>Some Anchor</a>

To fix it your use an attribute selector to specify only 'A' elements
that have 'href' attributes, i.e, links!

STYLE:
A { color: yellow; }
A[href]:link { color: blue; }
A[href]:visted { color: violet; }
A[href]:hover { color: green; }
A[href]:active { color: red; }
/* yes I know i didn't spec a background */

HTML:

<a name="anAnchor">An Achor</a>
<a href="#">A Link</a>

Now only the link hovers, problem is IE again is the problem with poor
CSS support. So you can work around by:

1) stop using <a name="something"></a> and reference an id on an element
<h2 id="someAnchor>... or <p id="anotherAnchor">...
2) have hovered links defined with a class
3) enclose hovered link some other element whereas your can define the
hovers

..gotLinks A:hover{}


<div class="gotLinks">Blah, blah blah <a href="#">Will Hover</a>...


You just have more studying to do....

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Mark Parnell wrote:

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mulroy
dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> declared in alt.html:

span id="something">Text</span
and a link such as
webpagename.htm#something
will still work?

Yes (though in most cases you shouldn't even need the span). See my
reply to Luigi where I went into more detail on this.

Not "instead". It is already there.

No it isn't. Replace a:hover with a:link:hover. This will then only
affect <a> elements that are *both* a link, and being hovered.

Or as I said earlier, a[href]:hover only effect A elements with an
'href' attribute BUT ... IE again is the problem with this one...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> declared in alt.html:

Or as I said earlier, a[href]:hover only effect A elements with an
'href' attribute BUT ... IE again is the problem with this one...

Whereas a:link:hover *is* supported by IE (IIRC - you've got me doubting
myself now). Easier just to not use <a name=""> in the first place
though. :-)

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

Mark Parnell wrote:

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, "Jonathan N. Little"
lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> declared in alt.html:

Or as I said earlier, a[href]:hover only effect A elements with an
'href' attribute BUT ... IE again is the problem with this one...

Whereas a:link:hover *is* supported by IE (IIRC - you've got me doubting
myself now). Easier just to not use <a name=""> in the first place
though. :-)

Agree there totally, NN4 @.01% on my site!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

1-I am not in Australia.

Your loss. ;-)

Agreed but I've managed to pleasantly survive in North Carolina and New
Jersey.

I went to Australia after visiting New Zealand. It is a pretty country - at
least in the Southeast as that was all I saw. Sydney was nice if a bit
crowded. Melbourne reminded me of San Francisco because of the
trolleys/cable cars but also seemed a bit dangerous (there was the first
time I'd seen barriers between taxi drivers and their passengers).
Australians were friendly except for in Canberra where all seemed a bit
rude. I was annoyed by the fact that the rudest all had American accents.
Of all the places I liked Cooma and the people there the best. The currency
controls were a pain but apparently successful since $1 Australian equalled
$1.40 US. Of course that was a while ago - the opera house was fairly new
and they kicked Sinatra out while I was there.

.. Ed

Mark Parnell wrote in message
newspquwzwtemom$.dlg (AT) markparnell (DOT) com.au...

1-I am not in Australia.

Your loss. ;-)

Even if your country does not currently have law requiring that your
site be accessible, that doesn't mean it won't in the future.

2-Photographs are viewable only by those who can see. No court or
legislator can change that fact be they in Australia or not.

No one is suggesting that you have to achieve the impossible. But the
site itself still should be accessible - even if they can't see the
photos, they can still read the text.

3-I doubt that Australian (or any of the "numerous countries" you
allude to)

http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/

law mandates that I am guilty of discrimination if I fail to
support someone's PDA.

Most are primarily focused on people with disabilities, though I see no
reason it should not extend to people using a PDA. But if your site is
accessible to screen readers and other assistive devices it will be
accessible on a PDA anyway, so it's not like PDAs require any additional
effort.

Finally, a convincing argument for investigating in depth the alternatives
to tables.

... you know those
jokes where you wish for something ...

My grandmother used to speak of an ancient Chinese curse which was "may you
get what you wish for".

.. Ed

dorayme wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-BC10DB.10142909062006 (AT) news-vip (DOT) optusnet.com.au...

Tables are easy. CSS is not easy.

You are right. A lot of magic is built into tables to save you
making "good" features. But like many things magical, you often
get what you don't want along with the package... you know those
jokes where you wish for something, it comes true and turns
around to bite you?