[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] hopefully fix #1036

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hopefully fix #1036
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 00:34:15 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:36:50PM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2010/5/17 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Francisco Vila <address@hidden> wrote:
> > However, it breaks the webpage; we now have links like
> >  introduction.html#introduction
> > instead of
> >  introduction.html#Introduction
> As for the scrolled down problem: when it supposedly "worked well", it
> only did because the links were wrong, they did not match with the
> anchors.  So, the browser renders the whole page, because the filename
> is correct but the target does not exist.

Ah, I remember now.  I tried to remove the #foo if "foo" matched
the "foo.html" portion, but I couldn't easily get rid of the #.
The best I could do was to make it
which either had some problem, or just looked bad.

I didn't spend a _lot_ of time poking around on this problem, so
if you look into it as well (and maybe ask the texi2html people
for help), you might find a solution.

> Now the anchors and the targets do match. So, if the page scrolls down
> is only because a flaw in our page design: we'd have to put a link at
> the top of a page which link to, not rely on that broken links will
> result on the page being fully showed.

No.  The solution isn't to add a new link; the solution is to fix
texi2html (or maybe the CSS).  That can be either done in our init
file, or by reporting this problem to texi2html.

I think the CSS is fine, btw.  I just list it for completeness.

> > I'm also not at all certain about the
> > -  return ($id, $target);
> > +  return ($target, $target);
> >
> > lines.
> The correct is ($targed, $id) (i.e. the opposite of what it was). But
> then the target and the anchor swapped again, and they did continue
> not matching.  They only do match that way (we agree in that target
> and anchors must match, do we?)

No, we don't agree.  In >80% of our links, we don't need the #foo
portion at all, and they only get in the way.  As long as they
don't *break* anything, I don't mind having a #foo there, but they
*do* break things on the website.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]