用id替换名称 [英] Replacing name with id
问题描述
我现在在HTML 4.01中有一堆旧网页严格我每时都更新
，然后修改材料。当使用< a
name ="时，它们被写回来了。是包含锚的常规方法。大多数
内部锚点遵循非常标准的布局，并且与
和h3标题相关联。
我想知道是否有任何理由不改变这些< a
name ="锚点到< h3 id ="锚？我认为所有最近的浏览器
都可以在任何元素上使用id作为锚点。我也收集了这个名字
在我还没有使用的一个或另一个XHTML版本中被弃用
由于IE。我确实认为，如果我确定我已经厌倦了为IE提供服务，那么将来可能会更方便。对于XHTML，我可能会感到很尴尬。
我将对所有页面进行其他全局更改，因此此更改
只是为我的工作添加了另外几组全局替换。
-
http://www.ericlindsay.com
I have a bunch of old web pages now in HTML 4.01 Strict I update every
now and then with revised material. They were written back when using <a
name=" was the normal method of including an anchor. Most of the
internal anchors follow a very standard layout, and are associated with
an h3 heading.
I was wondering whether there was any reason not to change these <a
name=" anchors to <h3 id=" anchors? I gather that all recent browsers
work fine with id on any element as an anchor. I also gather that name
is deprecated in one or another of the XHTML versions I am not yet using
due to IE. I did think it might be handy in future to be a little closer
to XHTML, if I do decide I am tired of catering to IE.
I would be making other global changes to all the pages, so this change
simply adds another few sets of global replacements to my work.
--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
推荐答案
Scripsit Eric Lindsay：
Scripsit Eric Lindsay:
我想知道是否有任何理由不改变这些< a
name ="锚点到< h3 id ="锚？
I was wondering whether there was any reason not to change these <a
name=" anchors to <h3 id=" anchors?
不是真的，除非你正在做一些需要id属性的脚本
元素。
Not really, unless you''re doing some scripting that needs id attributes
for the elements.
我收集所有最近的浏览器
可以在任何元素上使用id作为锚点。
I gather that all recent browsers
work fine with id on any element as an anchor.
对。我们现在几乎可以忽略Netscape 4.
Right. We can virtually ignore Netscape 4 these days.
我也收集了这个名字
在一个或另一个XHTML版本中被弃用
I also gather that name
is deprecated in one or another of the XHTML versions
那是无关紧要的。 （从技术上讲，它已被弃用于< aelements，但
并非所有元素都被弃用。如你所知，弃用的原因是
id属性为了这个目的，它更像逻辑和XML。）
That''s irrelevant. (Technically, it''s deprecated for <aelements, but
not for all elements. The reason for the deprecation, as you know, is
that the id attribute is more logical and XML-like for the purpose.)
我确实认为将来可能会很方便成为一个更接近的b
更接近到XHTML，如果我确定我厌倦了迎合IE。
I did think it might be handy in future to be a
little closer to XHTML, if I do decide I am tired of catering to IE.
没关系。如果您曾经转换为XHTML，那么无论如何都要进行几次
的更改，并且_this_更改并不是特别的。您可以将id用于新页面，就像您可能使用
仅小写元素名称一样，因为这些在经典HTML
以及XHTML中是必需的。但是更改现有的< a name = ...>
锚点或元素名称中现有的大写字母使用是没有意义的。
_Any_更改，无论多么自动化，涉及错误的风险;一些
假设可能会失败，而你的正则表达式（或其他）可能会以某种特殊情况错过一些特殊情况并产生混乱。只有在有某些东西要赢的时候才能获得
风险，比如出于某种原因而执行转换为XHTML的
（完全）。 />
-
Jukka K. Korpela（Yucca）
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
It doesn''t matter. If you ever switch to XHTML, you will have several
changes to be made anyway, and making _this_ change is not really
special. You might use id for new pages, just as you might use
lowercase-only element names, because these are allowed in classic HTML
as well as required in XHTML. But changing existing <a name= ...>
anchors or existing use of uppercase in element names is just pointless.
_Any_ change, no matter how automated, involves a risk of errors; some
assumptions may just fail, and your regular expression (or whatever) may
somehow miss some special case and produce a mess. It''s better to take
risks only when there is something to be won, i.e. when performing the
(full) conversion to XHTML for some real reason.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Sun，2008年1月6日14:45:14来自Eric Lindsay的+1000
< NO ************* @ ericlindsay.com>：
Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:45:14 +1000 from Eric Lindsay
<NO*************@ericlindsay.com>:
我现在在HTML 4.01中有一堆旧网页严格我每次更新每个
，然后使用修改后的材料。当使用< a
name ="时，它们被写回来了。是包含锚的常规方法。大多数
内部锚点遵循非常标准的布局，并且与
和h3标题相关联。
我想知道是否有任何理由不改变这些< a
name ="锚点到< h3 id ="锚？
I have a bunch of old web pages now in HTML 4.01 Strict I update every
now and then with revised material. They were written back when using <a
name=" was the normal method of including an anchor. Most of the
internal anchors follow a very standard layout, and are associated with
an h3 heading.
I was wondering whether there was any reason not to change these <a
name=" anchors to <h3 id=" anchors?
我想不出任何。 IIRC，Netscape的一个非常古老的版本兑现了
name =但不是= id，但现在已经有好几年了。只需要在你的脚本中小心地删除相关的< / a>，即使它不是在同一行上，也不是
。
-
Stan Brown，Oak Road Systems，美国纽约汤普金斯县
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01规范： http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
验证器： http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1规范： http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
验证者： http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
为什么我们不能帮助你：
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
I can''t think of any. IIRC, a very old version of Netscape honored
name= but not =id, but that''s been quite a few years now. Just be
careful in your script to remove the associated </a>, even if it''s
not on the same line.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won''t Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Scripsit Jukka K. Korpela：
Scripsit Jukka K. Korpela:
Scripsit Eric Lindsay：
Scripsit Eric Lindsay:
>我想知道是否有任何理由不改变这些< a
名称= QUOT;锚点到< h3 id ="锚？
>I was wondering whether there was any reason not to change these <a
name=" anchors to <h3 id=" anchors?
不是真的，除非你正在做一些需要id的元文件
元素的b $ b属性。
Not really, unless you''re doing some scripting that needs id
attributes for the elements.
糟糕，我似乎误读了这个问题。我回答了问题在
有任何理由......。
-
Jukka K. Korpela （Yucca）
http：//www.cs。 tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Oops, I seem to have misread the question. I answered the question "in
there any reason...".
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
这篇关于用id替换名称的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
