W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Proposed anchor target attribute _download

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 13:04:39 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mwjWR4DMMOUneJRQtV45cV_KZDETX4BG3jdvgZ04EOeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Abram Wiebe <ethanpet113@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
I've registered https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20583 to
properly introduce @download into the W3C spec. I therefore think we don't
need target=_download. Abram: are you happy with this solution or is there
a reason to prefer the _download @target value?

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:

> On 04/01/2013 04:14 , Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>
>> An author is expected to know whether I would prefer to download a
>> resource or simply open it normally. This strikes me as unlikely.
>>
>
> I don't think so. Obviously this could be used stupidly, but that would
> just cause the site to shoot itself in the foot so I doubt it will be used
> overly poorly.
>
> The default situation is that activating a link follows it, and users have
> an option to download it instead. This just reverses the situation. As an
> author-driven way of specifying a different default behaviour it is exactly
> similar to target=_blank except that _blank is used annoyingly wrongly
> altogether too often whereas I'm pretty sure that that won't be the case
> for @download. In fact @download can be seen as just target=_download with
> the ability to specify the file name.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>
Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 02:05:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 January 2013 02:05:27 GMT