[Love Calm Quiet]

I have never before had trouble getting Safari to follow a link with a name attached ( //:www.mydomain.com/index.html#credits ).
But now I've got a name="credits" in a (div) which is positioned absolutely and SAFARI 1.0 seems to go just to top of page. IE 5.2, Netscape 6, and AOL(Mac) all scroll upward so that the "credits" tag is at top of window.
Only other noteworthy complication on the page is that there's a navig (div) that is positioned:fixed at bottom - but that's not where the (a) tag is.
I'd think I just had done something bizarre somewher on the page except that the other browsers are behaving just fine.
Any ideas?

[Avenir]

I had similar problems with that on a page I built. The page loaded a second page in an iframe, and I wanted it to automatically scroll the iframe to a certain point on that page. Worked fine in IE, but not in safari. Workaround? Ditched the iframe in the end

[mania]

i think safari uses the new id tag so you might need to have both name="something" id="something" - i had to do that to get one of my javascripts to work in safari

[Love Calm Quiet]

1) Avenir: thanks for the sad news

2) Mania: That's a most useful hint. Sounds like that might be isolating the problem. I'm trying it now with [a id="costs" name="costs"][/a] and not seeing any different performance with Safari. (using the angle brackets in actual code, of course)

[york28]

I think that the way Safari behaves with name tags depends on the DOCTYPE that you're using. If it's html 4.01 or xhtml transitional, it should handle the name tags, if it's xhtml strict, I believe that it would use ids.

I have ids that I reference in links on my website, and Safari behaves fine. They are also in a DIV that is positioned absolutely.

Safari does have some bizarre quirks in it still- if you think it's the DIV positioned at the bottom of the page, does the problem go away when you remove it?

[Love Calm Quiet]

Thanks Jim.
Yes, I'm doing transitional: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"...
I can eliminate the problem by doing work-around and not having absolutely positioned (div), but...
Must we live with such failures of Safari (as if its creator were MS)?
Anyone know anything about Apple's ?continuing? work to bring Safari up to speed - so we don't find ourselves having to go to MSIE for certain pages?

[Love Calm Quiet]

Well, after altering the (div) that was absolutely positioned and had anchors that Safari would not recognize properly, I got the site to work great with Safari.

Worse, though: I went to a friend's to look at the effect on a 2003 version of MSIE for Windows and on AOL. So... guess what?

"Position: fixed" style seems to be treated as "Position: absolute" by the POSes (MSIE & AOL 8). I hadn't read that "Position: fixed" was not implemented on the most recent browsers for PCs - anybody know if there's workarounds. That style works swimmingly on Safari (and even IE5.2Mac) to keep an image or (div) at the bottom of the screen - but unfortunately I have to design for PC users too.

Workarounds to accommodate PC browsers, anyone?

(Rant: What good are standards for browsers when they are ignored by the 900-pound gorillas?)

[york28]

Position: fixed is interpreted as Position: static on Internet Explorer, which includes IE 5-6SP1 and AOL. Which totally sucks.

You could use a javascript to keep the div or image at the bottom of the viewing window, but this would be messy. I don't have one handy, but my opinion is that it's not worth it.

One option would be to have the image located in a div at the bottom of the screen, and then absolutely position another div above it, using css to specify overflow: scroll; (or auto, I can't remember which one works correctly) to have the upper div containing your content scroll. This way the browser window doesn't actually scroll, and you can place your image/div absolutely using left:0; bottom: 0;

You may have browser incompatibility issues with this too, but it may be worth checking out.

[Love Calm Quiet]

Thanks for the clarification, Jim.

Just MS & AOL giving us more of what we have come to expect from them.

I may start to play with your workaround ideas, or... just go back to some tables for now for speed of development. If anybody has any other strategies I should look at? I'd love to hear them!