img name or ID

[TheKeith]

I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict. Is it
recommended that you use the ID attribute for images along with the
getElementById method instead of the old way? Thanks.

[Vicomte De Valmont]

Re: img name or ID

I don't know if it is deprecated, it surprises me a bit for there exist a
global collection
document.images
That collection is addressed by numerical indexes or by NAME properties:
document.images["mygifName"].src
this is why if it has been deprectaed it would surprise me. yet everything
is possible...!

Yet, of course getElementById requires an ID="something" .
Of course, you can use both name= and id= in an image - the name to exploit
the document.images collection, the id for getElementById or, let's say,
dhtml
ciao
Alberto Vallini

http://www.unitedscripters.com/

"TheKeith" <no@spam.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:JYidnfGOka EhsgGiRVn-tg@giganews.com ...[color=blue]
> I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict. Is it
> recommended that you use the ID attribute for images along with the
> getElementById method instead of the old way? Thanks.
>
>[/color]

[HikksNotAtHome]

Re: img name or ID

>From: "TheKeith" no@spam.com
[color=blue]
>I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict. Is it
>recommended that you use the ID attribute for images along with the
>getElementBy Id method instead of the old way? Thanks.[/color]

I just validated a page, with html4.01 strict, that has name attributes in the
img tags and it validated fine. So I doubt that its been deprecated. If it has,
then the validator at w3c is wrong.


--
Randy

[TheKeith]

Re: img name or ID


"HikksNotAtHome " <hikksnotathome @aol.com> wrote in message
news:2003102615 4742.28070.0000 0204@mb-m27.aol.com...[color=blue][color=green]
> >From: "TheKeith" no@spam.com[/color]
>[color=green]
> >I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict. Is it
> >recommended that you use the ID attribute for images along with the
> >getElementBy Id method instead of the old way? Thanks.[/color]
>
> I just validated a page, with html4.01 strict, that has name attributes in[/color]
the[color=blue]
> img tags and it validated fine. So I doubt that its been deprecated. If it[/color]
has,[color=blue]
> then the validator at w3c is wrong.[/color]


Yeah I validated an image map where the image has a name attribute in it. I
guess I'm wrong about this one--can't remember where I heard it.

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Re: img name or ID

"TheKeith" <no@spam.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict.[/color]

Some uses of the name attribute are deprecated in HTML 4.01. That
means that they are removed from HTML 4.01 Strict, and not just
deprecated.
[color=blue]
> Is it recommended that you use the ID attribute for images along
> with the getElementById method instead of the old way?[/color]

In HTML 4.01 Strict, if you need to name an element, other than a form
control, you should use the id attribute. It is the only available
attribute.

You can use either document.getEle mentsById or document.images .namedItem
to access an image in W3C DOM 2 HTML. In ECMAScript, using square brackets
is equivalent to using the namedItem method on collections.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: img name or ID

TheKeith wrote:
[color=blue]
> I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict.[/color]

The `name' attribute for the `img' element is _not_ deprecated:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/attributes.html#n (no `D' there at `IMG'!)
[color=blue]
> Is it recommended that you use the ID attribute for images along
> with the getElementById method instead of the old way?[/color]

That's what the HTML 4.01 Specification recommends but you need to
reconsider that, depending on your target group. If you don't want
to exclude users of UAs not capable of the W3C-DOM like Netscape 4.x,
use the `name' attribute anyway since there is no other way than the
so-called "DOM Level 0"'s document.images[...] collection to access
images.


PointedEars

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Re: img name or ID

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@we b.de> writes:
[color=blue]
> the so-called "DOM Level 0"'s document.images[...] collection to access
> images.[/color]

The document.images collection is actually official DOM 2.
<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-HTML/html.html#ID-90379117>

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: img name or ID

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@we b.de> writes:[color=green]
>> the so-called "DOM Level 0"'s document.images[...] collection to access
>> images.[/color]
>
> The document.images collection is actually official DOM 2.
> <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-HTML/html.html#ID-90379117>[/color]

Ah, thx :)


\V/ Live long and prosper

PointedEars

[Dom Leonard]

Re: img name or ID

TheKeith wrote:
[color=blue]
> I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict.[/color]

No. The attribute index in the recommendation from

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/

only shows the name attribute of the APPLET tag as being deprecated, but
this follows from the APPLET tag being deprecated. A search through
the DTD itself shows name attributes on various element types, including
IMG.

Is it[color=blue]
> recommended that you use the ID attribute for images along with the
> getElementById method instead of the old way?[/color]

Yes and not necessarily.

It recommends to use id on image elements to identify them, but allows
giving them a name attribute (with the exact same value as any id
attribute provided) for backwards compatability.

The DOM2 HTML recommendation describes the document.images collection
without deprecation. It notes for backwards compatability the collection
excludes images included in the document using OBJECT tags, and
recommends using getElementsByTa gName instead of document.images to
"find the images in the document". In the absence of deprecation, I take
this to imply "when the presence of images resulting from OBJECT tag
usage may be at issue".

Using getElementById to find images is perfectly acceptable.

--

Dom

[DU]

Re: img name or ID

TheKeith wrote:[color=blue]
> I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict. Is it
> recommended that you use the ID attribute for images along with the
> getElementById method instead of the old way? Thanks.
>
>[/color]

I recommend you only use the id attribute for <img> for 2 reasons:
- id is unique when name attribute is not
- if you ever want to convert your HTML 4.01 page to XHTML, then you're
already a step closer since "XHTML 1.0 has deprecated the name attribute
of the a, applet, form, frame, iframe, img, and map elements, and it
will be removed from XHTML in subsequent versions."

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#C_8

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/

- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

[DU]

Re: img name or ID

DU wrote:

Even the HTML 4.01 recommendation also recommends, prefers id attribute
over name attribute for <img>: "This attribute (name) has been included
for backwards compatibility. Applications should use the id attribute to
identify elements."

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-name-IMG

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/

- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

[TheKeith]

Re: img name or ID


"DU" <drunclear@ho t-R-E-M-O-V-E-mail.com> wrote in message
news:bni5pn$no6 $1@news.eusc.in ter.net...[color=blue]
> DU wrote:
>
> Even the HTML 4.01 recommendation also recommends, prefers id attribute
> over name attribute for <img>: "This attribute (name) has been included
> for backwards compatibility. Applications should use the id attribute to
> identify elements."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...#adef-name-IMG
>[/color]

I'll use the ID attribute from now on especially since I'm learning--there's
no point in learning an old way of doing something. I might as well keep
everything uniform by using ID for everything.

[Vicomte De Valmont]

Re: img name or ID

ciao
uhm why not using both? I mean an old way of doing soemthing doesn't age:
the document.images collection is an useful tool: it grants you the option
to loop throughout ALL the available images with an array already arranged.
otherwise you'd have to arrange it yourself, either patching up a collection
by repeatedly calling in document.getEle mentById('image 101') or by
document.getEle mentsByTagName( "A")
the former is highly unpractical, the second is much slower than just using
an object which is already within the built in arrays of a loaded document.
It is not an issue of purist vs moderns: it is that I'm suggesting: use
both - dismissing the name just because they ADDED the id feature doesn't
mean you have to give up the possibility to scan all your images with an
alrerady available collection. Again, name= is NOT deprecated.
Of course, feel free to dismiss my suggestion, but please: it is NOT a
suggestion of "old school" vs "new school": it is the suggestion that
everybody with javascript expereince would be likely to lend to you.
Of course, eventually do as you prefer. yet using two weapons instead than
one is better - we have not given up the rifle because we have the scuds.
ciao

Alberto

http://www.unitedscripters.com/

"TheKeith" <no@spam.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:DJWdnUQbLM EcBgGiRVn-jw@giganews.com ...[color=blue]
>
> "DU" <drunclear@ho t-R-E-M-O-V-E-mail.com> wrote in message
> news:bni5pn$no6 $1@news.eusc.in ter.net...[color=green]
> > DU wrote:
> >
> > Even the HTML 4.01 recommendation also recommends, prefers id attribute
> > over name attribute for <img>: "This attribute (name) has been included
> > for backwards compatibility. Applications should use the id attribute to
> > identify elements."
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...#adef-name-IMG
> >[/color]
>
> I'll use the ID attribute from now on especially since I'm[/color]
learning--there's[color=blue]
> no point in learning an old way of doing something. I might as well keep
> everything uniform by using ID for everything.
>
>[/color]

[cwdjr]

Re: img name or ID

I converted several pages from xhtml 1.0 strict to xhtml 1.1 just
after the W3C validator included xhtml 1.1. There was little change
required on most pages. And then I came to a set of linked pages that
used "name". The validator found an error for every name I used, and I
had to convert about 50 names to id. I will let the W3C speak for
itself in the following quote.:"This Appendix describes the
differences between XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 1.0 Strict. XHTML 1.1
represents a departure from both HTML 4 and XHTML 1.0. Most
significant is the removal of features that were deprecated. In
general, the strategy is to define a markup language that is rich in
structural functionality, but that relies upon style sheets for
presentation.Th e differences can be summarized as follows:On every
element, the lang attribute has been removed in favor of the xml:lang
attribute (as defined in [XHTMLMOD]).On the a and map elements, the
name attribute has been removed in favor of the id attribute (as
defined in [XHTMLMOD]).The "ruby" collection of elements has been
added (as defined in [RUBY])."

[Keith Bowes]

Re: img name or ID

TheKeith wrote:[color=blue]
> I heard that the name attribute is deprecated in html 4.01 strict.[/color]

It's been deprecated in XHTML 1.0 Strict, and completely removed from
XHTML 1.1. But it's still standard in HTML 4.01.