Problem:
I'm not sure whether it is technically better to bind generic events to inner or outer tags.
Also concerns deeper nested tags.
Aspects:
Does either use less CPU?
Does either have side effects?
Does either trigger more or less delayed?
Inheritance?
this?
What I/we already found out:
onclick on <a /> does trigger right before following the link
onload does only get triggered by a few tags which really load and display (works on <img />, not on <a />)
Variant example A:
<a href="#" onclick="function();">
<img src="picture.jpg" />
</a>
Variant example B:
<a href="#">
<img src="picture.jpg" onclick="function();" />
</a>
The following is rather unrelated but an explanation has been demanded in the comments:
"whats the point of having an <a> tag surrounding the image if
you are binding the onclick to the <img> tag?" - #Trug
The point is SEO friendly links with the ability to sidechain effects like an exit modal with a warning, an exit transition animation, an analytics event, or just as a kind of destructor.
Example:
<a href="http://seo.friendly.url/deeplink.htm"
onclick="triggerSpecialAnalyticsForExample(); triggerExitModal();">link</a>
Simple - variant B every day of the week and 4 times on the 29th of Feb. Why? Simple - the anchor element doesn't support the load event, thus waiting for it will take a very long time.
Using .addEventListener would be an even better method of attaching the handler to the element for all kinds of reasons.
Related
This is the code currently, I've tried adding target="_Blank" but it still opens in the same tab.
We are using WordPress and this is the code we use in the text box for a button to appear.
button color="extra-color-1" hover_text_color_override="#ffffff" size="large" url="https://www.insideeducation.ca/learning-resources/classroom-learning-resources/elementary-school/#flying-animals-scavenger-hunt" text="Flying Animals | Scavenger Hunt"]
did you try anchor tag because i think target attribute works pretty well with anchor
I can't tell you that any of these approaches will work for sure, but there are three methods or workarounds I've thought of that you could try out.
1. Use target="_blank"
I would usually use lower case letters in target attributes. So instead of target="_Blank", you could try target="_blank".
However, this is more likely to be a matter of preference, and I think browsers will most likely accept both of these options.
2. Use some simple javascript
You could use the javascript window.open() function as a workaround for this problem.
Replace target="_Blank" with onclick="window.open('https://www.example.com')" and see if that works any better!
3. Use an anchor tag
At the moment, you seem to be using a button element which looks something like this:
<button color="extra-color-1" ... target="_blank" url="https://...">
Click here!
</button>
You could wrap an a tag around the button and instead apply the target attribute to that. It may be that target attributes work better directly on anchor tags. Here's what it would look like:
<a href="https://..." target="_blank">
<button color="extra-color-1" ... >
Click here!
</button>
</a>
thanks in advance for your help.
I have some code that has an <a href>xxxxx</a> inside of a larger block of code which consists of divs inside of an <a>xxxxx</a> block, like this:
<a href=...>
<div>
xxxxxxx
</div>
<div>
<a href=...>xxxxxx</a>
</div>
<div>
xxxxx
</div>
</a>
note: in this case both <a> actually use the same href URL, the reason there are two <a> is that the first <a> already existed prior to surrounding the larger page area with <a href="..."> functionality
the problem is that i now need to use a <form> with hidden values and i am unclear as to where and how to place the <form> so that the user clicks definitely pass the hidden form parameters to the url
thanks again.....
First, using a link inside a link (a tags) makes no sense and is a no-go. Erase the inner link - wherever you click inside the outer link, the link will work anyway - no need for an inner link if it has the same target.
Second, if you mean to transmit parameters ("hidden form values") when you click that link, I wouldn't use a form, but append these values to the linked URL (like http://example.com/page1.php?par1=abc&par2=xyz, so that they can be received as GET parameters by the target page.
The CKEditor 4.3 demo show an example of widget for work with HTML5 figure tag.
As a user (editing the demo text) I can not edit a second figcaption (one before image, as "figure title", and other after image, as caption): when edit (by CKEditor's source code) before, it goes after, when I add a paragraph (p tag) before image, also goes after. So, there are no way to user express distinct "head-caption" and "foot-caption", always CKeditor put after image.
There are some configuration to enable "head-captions"?
The edited source code:
<figure class="caption" style="float:right">
<figcaption>HEAD - Test</figcaption>
<img alt="Apollo-CSM-LM"
src="http://b.cksource.com/a/1/img/demo/apollo-csm-lm.png" width="200" />
<figcaption>FOOT - Apollo CMS-LM spacecraft</figcaption>
</figure>
So, CKEditor transforms into,
<figure class="caption" style="float:right">
<img alt="Apollo-CSM-LM"
src="http://b.cksource.com/a/1/img/demo/apollo-csm-lm.png" width="200" />
<figcaption>HEAD - Test</figcaption>
<figcaption>FOOT - Apollo CMS-LM spacecraft</figcaption>
</figure>
Idem with <p>HEAD - Test</p>. If I use only the <figcaption>HEAD - Test</figcaption>, it also goes after image (impossible to express a "before img caption").
NOTE-1: "head" and "foot" figcaptions are both valid in HTML5, as showed in this fiddle.
NOTE-2: another problem is a caption with more than one paragraph. CKEditor transforms it in a BR, that is not what author need in a typical journal.
NOTE-3: for this related needs — use of paragraphs, use of "before image" caption, and use of two captions —, see all needs of a typical journal at an stable standard like JATS fig element, or millions of article examples at PMC.
Short answer - no, there is no config option for that.
Some details - you're using the image widget, which is supposed to handle figure.caption>img+figcaption case. Specific widget may not work with every possible input and it happens in this case.
If you want to remove that limitation there are two ways:
Don't use the image widget by disabling it or remove class="caption" from your HTML. For example this HTML will not be changed:
<figure>
<figcaption>1</figcaption>
<img src="..." ...>
<figcaption>2</figcaption>
</figure>
Also, the enter key will work in a standard way inside figcaptions (will create <p> tags).
The other way, if you want to use the image widget, is to modify its behaviour. In case of simple widgets it can be done without touching widget code, inn the widgetDefinition event listener. However, image widget is pretty complex, so you'd have to change its code.
To change enter key behaviour, just change the widgetDefinition.editables.caption.allowedContent - it has to contain a p tag. This part can be done in widgetDefinition listener.
In order to be able to use two captions, you'd have to add another nested editable and modify the plugin code, because it handles only img+figcaption case.
I'm trying to use the <a> tag in HTML5 more as a container as this tag can now have block elements as children, example:
before (valid XHTML 1.1)
<div>
<h3>
article title
</h3>
<p>
text
</p>
<a href="page.html" title="article title" >
<img alt="image">
</a>
<a href="page.html" title="article title" >
read more
</a>
</div>
after (valid HTML5)
<a href="page.html" title="article title" >
<h3>
article title
</h3>
<p>
text
</p>
<img alt="image">
<div>
read more
</div>
</a>
Does this new way of markup have any effects for SEO?
OK, removing pure semantics from your question (which, in my mind, does have a material impact on deciding on implementing your chosen method) and concentrating on pure "SEO" value and impact:
The first example needs to be qualified more, as if we take your example as literal, then you are linking to the same page.html 3 times. Google (specifically) only takes the link anchor value from the 1st link to any page that it comes across, so - the value for the first example is only extracted from that first link. The 2nd link (using an IMG tag with an ALT attribute as the anchor value), and the 3rd link using read more as the anchor value are effectively "ignored". It's important that other signals are used to supplement the first link's true intended value, such as surrounding text, images etc.
The 2nd example (HTML5), wraps all of that semantic/surrounding content up to make the effective 'anchor' value from which search engines will derive the link's intended meaning, and then as a consequence, the meaning of the destination page of the link.
Using an anchor tag as a containing wrapper for content that contains additional emphasis (the H tag), an image and an additional div only increases the difficulty that a search engine has to decipher the intended meaning of the link so it can associate it with the destination page.
Search engines (and Google predominantly) are constantly improving their crawling ability to enable better algorithmic parsing and processing of the HTML. Apart from emphasis signals (which are very low), Google mostly ignores the mark-up. The exception is of course links - so making an effort to simplify the parsing/processing by providing clear signals as to a link's anchor text is the safest way forward. Expecting them to understand all of the differences of HTML3, vs HTML4, vs HTML5 and all of the transitional, strict and other variations of each, is probably expecting too much.
TL;DR
Possibly, but only in terms of true link value.
As far as i know in the second way is not bad in anyway in term of seo But first may be slightly better as the titles,images are more closely linked to link.
Q. But better by how much?
A. May be not too much
This might be a stupid question but if there's a better or proper way to do this, I'd love to learn it.
I have run across this a few times, including recently, where small spaces show up in the rendered version of my HTML page. Intuitively I think these should not be there because outside of text or entities the formatting of a page's HTML shouldn't matter but apparently it does.
What I'm referring to is this - I have some Photoshop file from the client on how they want their site to look. They want it to look basically pixel perfect to the image in this file.
One of the places in the page calls for a menu bar, where each one does the changing bit on hovering, acts like a hyperlink, etc. In the Photoshop file this is one long bar, so a cheap and easy way to do this is to just split that segment into multiple images and then place them next to each other in the file.
So instinctively I lay it out like so (there's more to it but this is the gist)
<a href="page1.html">
<img src="image1.png" />
</a>
<a href="page2.html">
<img src="image2.png" />
</a>
<a href="page3.html">
<img src="image3.png" />
</a>
and so forth.
The problem is the images have this tiny space between them which is unacceptable since the client wants this thing pixel-perfect (and it just plain looks bad).
One way to get it to render properly is to remove the carriage returns between the images
<a href="page1.html">
<img src="image1.png" />
</a>
<a href="page2.html">
<img src="image2.png" />
</a>
<a href="page3.html">
<img src="image3.png" />
</a>
Which makes the images go right up against each other (the desired effect) but it makes the line incredibly long and the code more difficult to maintain (it wraps here in SO and this is a simplified version - the real one has longer filenames and JavaScript sprinkled in to do the hovering).
It seems to me that this shouldn't happen but it looks like the carriage return in the HTML is being rendered as a small empty space. And this happens in all browsers, looks like.
Am I right or wrong for thinking the two snippets above should render the same? And is there something I'm doing wrong? Maybe saving the file with the wrong encoding? Should I make every one of these links a perfectly positioned CSS element instead?
The whitespace (carriage return included) is usually rendered as space in all browsers.
You need to put the elements one after another, but you can use a trick:
<a href="page1.html"><img src="image1.png"
/></a><a href="page2.html"><img src="image2.png"
/></a><a href="page3.html"><img src="image3.png"
/></a>
This also looks a little ugly, but it's still better than one single line. You might change the formatting, but the idea is to add carriage returns inside the elements and not between them.
I don't know if this is general enough for your page, but you could class these particular a tags and float them all left, then they'll bunch together no matter how your HTML is formatted.
<style>
a.together {
float:left;
}
</style>
<a class='together' href="page1.html"><img src="image1.png" /></a>
<a class='together' href="page2.html"><img src="image2.png" /></a>
<a class='together' href="page3.html"><img src="image3.png" /></a>
That's part of the HTML specification - the spaces are in the markup so they're considered part of the document.
The only other options you've got, since you dislike the formatting, is to break the html tags:
<a href="..."><img src=".." /></a
><a href="..."><img src=".." /></a
><a href="..."><img src=".." /></a
which is undesirable in my opinion, or create the html dynamically - either via JavaScript or using a templating system and dynamic html.
The reason is simple: In HTML white space matters, but only once. Repeated white space is ignored, only the first is shown.
The only reliable way to avoid this is, as you did, by putting no white space between elements.
When table based layout would be less out than it is currently, you could use a zero-border, zero padding table to align your elements while having them on separate lines in the source code.
The way I handle this is to use an unordered list, and make each image/link an item.
Then use CSS to display each item inline and and float them to the left.
This will give you a lot more flexibility and make the markup very readable.
The behavior you demonstrated above is true as the browser treats carriage returns as a space. To fix it, you can style it like so with:
a { display: block; float: left; }
Please note that the above rule applies it to all links, so you might want to narrow the selector to certain elements only, ie:
#nav a { display: block; float: left; }
If you're going to do a tabbed interface on a website, take great pains to do it properly, and it will be worthwhile. There are many websites with great examples of CSS tab implementations. Consider using one of them.
This one has a lot of CSS+Javascript/AJAX tabs. Or see this set of simple CSS examples (some styled). Finally, check out this actually-pretty-cool tabs generator.