Apply a href-like attribute to non-<a> elements - xhtml

I've been working on a page where there are several entries contained in different <div>s. Each is only a title linked to a page, an image and a short description. However, the description may contain arbitrary tags, including <a> tags.
Since these are pretty straightforward and the actual link isn't that big, I've made it so a click on the <div> will call location.href = (link URL). However, that's a pretty sad thing, because it's browser-unfriendly: for instance, under Google Chrome, a middle-click on one of said <div>s won't open the link in a new tab.
Considering you shouldn't nest <a> tags, is it possible to make any element in XHTML behave like a link without resorting to Javascript?
I'm using XHTML 1.1, sent with the proper MIME type, and that's the only restriction I'm bound to.

Not really, no. Though it's worth reading Eric Meyer's thoughts on this. Also, it appears that HTML51 includes the capacity for any element to become a link, so it might be worth using that doctype instead of xhtml, if possible.
It's worth also adding that html 5 does allow for an <a> element to enclose block-level elements, see: http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2008/any-element-linking-in-html-5/, example taken from the linked page:
Instead of:
<h3>Bruce Lawson as Obama's running mate!</h3>
<img src="bruce.jpg" alt="lovegod" />
<p>In answer to McCain's appointment of MILF, Sarah Palin, Obama hires DILF, Bruce Lawson, as his running mate. Read more!</p>
you can say:
<a href="story.htm">
<h3>Bruce Lawson as Obama's running mate!</h3>
<img src="bruce.jpg" alt="lovegod" />
<p>In answer to McCain's appointment of MILF, Sarah Palin, Obama hires DILF, Bruce Lawson, as his running mate. Read more!</p>
</a>
Updated to mention possible inaccuracy
1: I may have misinterpreted part of the document to which I linked, having tried to find support for my claim that '...appears that HTML5...any element to become a link' (in the W3C's html 5 overview) it doesn't seem to be there. I think I was over-encouraged when I saw Meyer's proposal to include that possibility.
I'm too gullible, and naive... =/

If you want a link to cover an entire div, an idea would be to create an empty <a> tag as the first child:
<div class="covered-div">
<a class="cover-link" href="/my-link"></a>
<!-- other content as usual -->
</div>
div.covered-div {
position: relative;
}
a.cover-link {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
}
This works especially great when using <ul> to create block sections or slideshows and you want the whole slide to be a link (instead of simply the text on the slide). In the case of an <li> it's not valid to wrap it with an <a> so you'd have to put the cover link inside the item and use CSS to expand it over the entire <li> block.
Do note that having it as the first child means it will make other links or buttons inside the text unreachable by clicks. If you want them to be clickable, then you'd have to make it the last child instead.

Related

How to avoid broken thematic sections (eg. div) in HTML?

I am trying to transfer a text from a printed book into HTML5, but meanwhile I am trying to keep its thematic and page/paragraph/lines layout structure exactly as it is. For example, every page of the printed book is divided as a <div> section eg. <div class=page id=55> so that it emulates/represents exactly the page unit of the printed book, and also facilitate referencing. I don't care much how the text will be rendered on the browser, this is something that I can think about later. I just want the HTML and the browser to "know" the original pagination and layout of the printed book.
The problem is that in the printed book, some paragraphs or even boxes, tables etc span over to the next page. If I translate it to HTML, I do it like this:
<div class=page id=1>
<p>Once upon a time...</p>
...
<p>...and so the bold knight
</div>
<div class=page id=2>
slew the evil dragon.</p>
<p>Text...</p>
...
This is illegal in HTML, as we have a <p> tag being interrupted by a </div> tag, and then a new div element beginning with a plain text, which is closed by a </p> tag.
HTML would expect me to close the first part of the broken paragraph with a </p>, and continue with a new <p> tag after the div, but I am not doing this because it doesn't correspond to the pagnation of the original book, and would result in half-paragraphs being understood are 2 proper paragraphs.
So, how to use legal HTML while maintaining the theoretical page/paragraph/broken paragraph/page break structure and information, or at least making the brower "know" the original pagination? Is there a more appropriate tag or method to emulate the page break while keeping the page number id?
Perhaps something like
<p>...and so the brave knight<some tag(s) that show page 2 begins here>killed the dragon</p>
How about instead of encapsulating each page within a div you include a tag at the start of each page designating the page number. An aside tag seems appropriate for this.
<aside class="page-number" data-page="1">Page 1</aside>
<p>Once upon a time...</p>
<p>...and so the bold knight</p>
<aside class="page-number" data-page="2">Page 2</aside>
<p class="continued">slew the evil dragon.</p>
<p>Text...</p>
If you need to continue a paragraph then you'll have to break into multiple elements, but perhaps you can specify when a paragraph is a continuation of a previous one. For instance using the continued class as shown above.
If you really don't want to break the p tag then you could put a span within it that is only used for semantic reasons. Something like this;
<p>...and so the bold knight
<span class="page-marker" aria-hidden="true" data-page="1"></span>
slew the evil dragon.</p>
But this kind of makes less semantic sense than the previous solution.
Try adding display: inline; to either the CSS style of the class page or the style attribute of each page div.

How "safe" are Angular 2 custom html tags? (selectors: Custom tags vs. Custom attributes)

This is a question regarding Angular 2 selectors, Custom tags vs. Custom attributes, SEO and browser rendering.
When I first started to look over Angular 2, the very first thing I did when following their quickstart, right of the bat, was to change my selector to '[my-component]' (attribute selector) instead of 'my-component' (tag selector), so I could have <div my-component></div> in my html instead of <my-component></my-component>, which isn't valid html. So I would write html according to standards. Well, at least pretty close to standards (because my-component isn't a valid html attribute, but I could live with only that html validation error)
Then, at some point in a video on youtube, someone from the angular team mentioned that we should use the tag selector, performance wise at least.
Alright I said, screw html validation... or shouldn't I?
So:
Say I ignore the W3C screaming about my html being completely invalid because of the <custom-tags>. I actually have another bigger and more real concern: how does this impact SEO?
I mean don't just think client-side app, because in the real world (and for my angular 2 project as well) I also have server-side rendering, for 2 very important reasons: SEO and Fast initial rendering of the site to the user for that initial view, before the app bootstraps. You can not have a very high traffic SPA otherwise.
Sure, google will crawl my site, regardless of the tags I use, but will it rank it the same in both scenarios: one with <custom-make-believe-tags> and the other with only standard html tags?
Let's talk browsers and css:
As I started to build my first SPA site in Angular 2, I was immediately faced with another concern:
Say (in a non SPA site) I have the following html markup:
<header>
<a class="logo">
...
</a>
<div class="widgets">
<form class="frm-quicksearch"> ... </form>
<div class="dropdown">
<!-- a user dropdown menu here -->
</div>
</div>
</header>
<div class="video-listing">
<div class="video-item"> ... </div>
<div class="video-item"> ... </div>
...
</div>
Angular 2 wise I would have the following component tree:
<header-component>
<logo-component></logo-component>
<widgets-component>
<quicksearch-component></quicksearch-component>
<dropdown-component></dropdown-component>
</widgets-component>
</header-component>
<video-listing-component>
<video-item-component></video-item-component>
...
</video-listing-component>
Now, I have 2 options. Let's just take the <video-listing-component> for example, to keep this simple... I either
A) place the entire standard html tags which I already have (<div class="video-item"></div>) within the <video-item-component> tag, and once rendered will result in this:
<video-listing-component>
<div class="video-listing>
<video-item-component>
<div class="video-item>...</div>
</video-item-component>
...
...
</div>
</video-listing-component>
OR:
B) Only put the content of <div class="video-item"> directly into my <video-item-component> component and adding the required class (class="video-item") for styling on the component tag, resulting in something like this:
<video-listing-component class="video-listing">
<video-item-component class="video-item"></video-item-component>
<video-item-component class="video-item"></video-item-component>
...
</video-listing-component>
Either way (A or B), the browser renders everything just fine.
BUT if you take a closer look (after everything is rendered in the dom, of course), by default the custom tags don't occupy any space in the dom. They're 0px by 0px. Only their content occupies space. I don't get it how come the browser still renders everything as you would want to see it, I mean in the first case (A):
While having float: left; width: 25%; on the div class="video-item", but each of these divs being within a <video-item-component> tag, which doesn't have any styling... Isn't it just a fortunate side-effect that the browser renders everything as you'd expect? With all the <div class="video-item"> floating next to eachother, even though each of them are within another tag, the <video-item-component> which does NOT have float: left? I've tested on IE10+, Firefox, Chrome, all fine. Is it just fortunate or is there a solid explanation for this and we can safely rely for this kind of markup to be rendered as we'd expect by all (or at least most) browsers?
Second case (B):
If we use classes and styling directly on the custom tags (<video-item-component>)... again, everything shows up fine. But as far as I know, we shouldn't style custom components, right? Isn't this also just a fortunate expected outcome? Or is this fine also? I don't know, maybe I'm still living in 2009... am I?
Which of these 2 approaches (A or B) would be the recommended one? Or are both just fine?
I have no ideea!!
EDIT:
D'oh, thanks Günter Zöchbauer. Yeah, since my divs have float: left, that's why the (custom or not) tag they're wrapped in doesn't expand it's height. Seems I've forgotten how css works since I started to look over Angular 2:)
But one thing still remains:
If I set a percentage width on a block element (call it E), I would assume it takes x% of it's immediate parent. If I set float: left, I would expect floating within the immediate parent. In my A case, since the immediate parent is a custom tag with no display type and no width, I would expect for things to break somehow, but still... my E elements behave like their parent isn't the custom tag they're each wrapped in, but the next one in the dom (which is <div class="video-listing> in my case). And they occupy x% of that and they float within that. I don't expect this to be normal, I would think this is just a fortunate effect, and I'm afraid that one day, after some browser update... I'll wake up to find all my Angular 2 sites looking completely broken.
So... are both A and B an equally proper approach? Or am I doing it wrong in case A?
EDIT2:
Let's simplify things a bit. As I got part of my question answered, let's take another example of generated html (simplified a bit, with inlined css):
<footer>
<angular-component-left>
<div style="float: left; width: 50%;">
DIV CONTENT
</div>
</angular-component-left>
<angular-component-right>
<div style="float: left; width: 50%;">
DIV CONTENT
</div>
</angular-component-right>
</footer>
In the original, not yet implemented html (whithout <angular-component-...>, those divs should float left and each occupy 50% of the <footer>. Surprisingly, once they're wrapped in the <angular-component-...> custom tags, they do the same: occupy 50% of the footer. But this just seems like good fortune to me, dumb luck... Unintended effect.
So, is it or isn't it "dumb luck"?
Should I leave it like that, or rewrite so instead of the above code, I would have something like this:
<footer>
<angular-component-left style="display: block; float: left; width: 50%;">
DIV CONTENT
</angular-component-left>
<angular-component-right style="display: block; float: left; width: 50%;">
DIV CONTENT
</angular-component-right>
</footer>
Note that the inline styling is introduced here for simplicity, I would actually have a class instead which would be in an external css file included in the <head> of my document, not through style or styleUrls from my angular components.
The issue is your HTML validator. The - in the element name is required for elements to be treated as custom elements and it is valid HTML5. Angular doesn't require - in element names but it's good practice.
Check for example https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/#registering-custom-elements (search for x-foo) or https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/#custom-elements-custom-tag-example. I'm sure this dash rule is specified somewhere but wasn't able to find the spec. It is for example required in Polymer that depends on elements being proper custom elements while this doesn't matter much in Angular. The only difference as far as I know is that when you query the element, you get a HTMLUnknownElement when the - is missing in the name and a HTMLElement when it contains a -.
See also this question I asked a few years ago Why does Angular not need a dash in component name
BUT if you take a closer look, by default the custom tags don't occupy any space in the dom. They're 0px by 0px. Only their content occupies space. I just don't get it how come the browser still renders everything as you would want to see it
I'm not sure I understand this question. When Angular processes the template it adds the content dynamically. When you see the content in the browser than it's also available in the DOM and has actual dimensions.
Search engine crawlers are able to process pages that are generated by JavaScript. If this isn't enough, server-side rendered pages can provide static HTML to crawlers that contain the whole view.

Legitimately hide/prevent Rich Snippet html from rendering on screen - is this OK to do?

I am using rich snippets on my site, I have all of the code for them in the footer so that they are centrally located and easy to access. I do not want the text around these snippets rendered on the page because that info is elsewhere on the site. Is it ok to hide this text by using style="display:none" or will Google ignore the rich snippet entirely because the fields are hidden?
<!-- start rich snippet code -->
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/LocalBusiness">
<span itemprop="name" style="display:none">My Business Name</span>
<div itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress">
<span itemprop="streetAddress" style="display:none">123 Example Street, Suite 456</span>
<span itemprop="addressLocality" style="display:none">Major City</span>
<span itemprop="addressRegion" style="display:none">NY</span>
<span itemprop="postalCode" style="display:none">12345</span>
<span itemprop="addressCountry" style="display:none">US</span>
</div>
<span itemprop="telephone" style="display:none">(123) 456-7890</span>
<a itemprop="URL" style="display:none">http://www.mycompanysite.com/</a>
</div>
<!-- end rich snippet code -->
Any info would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance!
As #Diodeus said, ideally you'd have these rich snippets on the actual info that is shown to the user elsewhere on the site. Duplicating it is usually unnecessary.
Yes, Google may well ignore this content based on the display:nones. Can I ask why you're setting it on each element rather than just once on the highest level div?
A way around the display:none potential SEO issue would be to hide it in a different way. For example give the parent div a class of .visuallyhidden and add this to your stylesheet:
.visuallyhidden {
border: 0;
clip: rect(0 0 0 0);
height: 1px;
margin: -1px;
overflow: hidden;
padding: 0;
position: absolute;
width: 1px;
}
I would like to mention that Google tries heavily (using combination of algorithmic and manual things) to find websites which illegitimately use hidden text.
The typical penalty for that would be a removal from index for 30 days. However, you should not be concerned if you use hidden fields legitimate ways.
There is a very nice article Eric Enge Interviews Google's Matt Cutts regarding Google attitude toward illegitimately use of hidden text.
Have a look at this: https://sites.google.com/site/webmasterhelpforum/en/faq-rich-snippets and search for the word 'tempting'.
' It can be tempting to add all the content relevant for a rich snippet
in one place on the page, mark it up, and then hide the entire block
of text using CSS or other techniques. Don't do this! Mark up the
content where it already exists. Except in special circumstances ... '
It might seem like a clever idea to hide elements in a more complex way than by just display:none but, and i guess the same can be applied for hidden honeypot form fields, you are not the only one who can think of that.
Note: It is as easy to determine if a field is hidden by display:none as it is by margin:0; padding:0; width:1px; height:1px; overflow:hidden or by position:absolute; top:-[a value bigger than the page height]px or by something similar.
People would rich-snippet everything as an Apple product page if it would be ok to hide the snippet and provide any other kind of information on the porn - i mean page.
You got all that information already hanging out on the site, so just add the correct microdata tags to the corresponding text passages and google (other search engines, too by the way) will be happy.
So, for example, if your main page title already exists, put the itemprop="description" tag in the <div> tag thats is wrapping the title and you should be fine.
:)

What should be the following tag to a span nested within an anchor?

I am trying to learn fundamentals of html and markings.
I want to create an anchor which containes two lines of information.
first line: the name of the link
second line: short explanation
e.g.
<a href='#'>
<span>Studies</span>
<span class="alt">-Information about studies</span>
</a>
Is this correct?
How should the following (2nd span) be modified if necessary?
Thank you
PS. Both lines need to be surrounded with span for css-styling.
First off, don't rule out using a br tag. This is a semantically-appropriate place for a br tag (forcing a hard break inside a line or paragraph of text). Plus, if you use a br tag, it may no longer be necessary to put either of the two lines of text in separate tags, unless you want to style them differently.
<a href='#'>
Studies<br/>
-Information about studies
</a>
Second, try viewing the HTML with stylesheets disabled (I do this in Firefox by pressing ctrl-shift-S, with a little help from the Web Developer extension). Is the browser able to render the content in an easy-to-read way based solely on the HTML provided? To some extent, the more readable the "unstyled" content appears, the more semantically-correct the HTML is.
Given that the second line of text seems to be secondary to the first line (a subtitle, not as important, possibly redundant or not entirely essential), putting the first line in a strong tag or putting the second line in a small tag are a couple ways to establish the relative importance of the two lines, if you wish to do so.
<a href='#'>
<strong>Studies</strong><br/>
-Information about studies
</a>
<a href='#'>
Studies<br/>
<small>-Information about studies</small>
</a>
There's some room for personal preference here. These are just two approaches.
It may be a little bit of a stretch using a small tag in a case like this, but it's not entirely inappropriate. A small tag is typically used for "fine print", attribution, disclaimers, or side comments. It doesn't semantically mean the text is small, but it does tend to be used for content that's secondary to something else (that clarifies something else). It should though only be used for text that's short in length.
And a strong tag doesn't have to be styled bold. In fact, that's the whole point of semantic markup: It doesn't specify or imply how the content will be styled; all it does is offer a hint to the meaning or context of the content. A strong tag can reasonably be given a style of font-weight:normal.
In order to achieve that those are in separate lines, try using the <div> tag instead. You can still specify a class for styling, the only difference is that <div>s are block-elements; each of them is rendered on a separate line. Here's the modified version of your code:
<a href='#'>
Studies
<div class="alt">-Information about studies</div>
</a>
Another, slightly more preferable way of doing that is by styling the elements to be block-elements. That can be used by setting the CSS display property to block. Something like:
<a href='#'>
Studies
<span class = "alt block">-Information about studies</span>
</a>
(Note that class = "alt block" means the element has both classes alt and block, and note also that the first <span> is removed because there's no need to style that node with anything).
CSS:
.block {
display: block;
}
Hope that helped you!

Is there a penalty to using two <nav> elements in a <header>

I'm referring to a main menu and a smaller supermenu (don't know the proper term), as seen here:
For something like this, I was going to put two <nav> elements in the <header>. Is there any reason (SEO or otherwise) that this is a bad idea? If so, what would an alternative be?
(this is different from multiple <nav> tags, which referred to multiple on an entire page, not in a single block element)
Short answer: no there is not (probably)
Longer answer: the HTML5 spec itself is a bit fluffy on the subject:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-nav-element
The thing is that they designate the <nav> element to 'major' navigation blocks, but leave it to the imagination (of both developers and parsers) what that means. As you can see they even provided an example where they exclude the "site-wide" from the navigation block.
<body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Blog">
<header>
<h1>Wake up sheeple!</h1>
<p>News -
Blog -
Forums</p>
<p>Last Modified: <span itemprop="dateModified">2009-04-01</span></p>
<nav>
<h1>Navigation</h1>
<ul>
<li>Index of all articles</li>
<li>Things sheeple need to wake up for today</li>
<li>Sheeple we have managed to wake</li>
</ul>
</nav>
</header>
They seem to do that because they consider limiting the number of links in nav elements a plus for readability (think screen readers etc).
It is probably a bit too early to know what the search engines are going to do, but it seems safe to think that they will attach more importance to nav element links to detect the structure of you site and maybe more so if you have less of them...
My impression: Twitter and Facebook links seem certainly out, support and blog are debatable
I think it does not matter. NAV element just marks functional role of some content. So if you have two separate navigation blocks (regardless of where it's placed: in header or in other parts of page), you are free to use separate NAV elements for them. Some "penalties" from search engines in that case would be pointless.
Nav can be used multiple times on a page in HTML5.
CAN…yes
SHOULD…probably not.
I’ve always worked on the basis that the NAV tag is only for the primary page/site navigations.
If my main (header) navigation area is used for the [nav] then any other menus can be in divs with some role for ARIA.

Resources