- From: Spartanicus <mk98762@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:29:34 +0100
Smylers <Smylers at stripey.com> wrote: >> Possibly, but then what's the point of making _blank non conforming if >> it is not trying to be a benefit to users by discouraging its use. > >There's also a difference between marking something as non-conforming >(because there's a better alternative which should be used instead), and >completely blocking the old way of doing it. No-one has suggested that, I suggested a user configurable option to prevent HTML code resulting in opening a new window. There is already at least one browser that offers such an option. >If target="_blank" is ignored users can't tell that the author intended >some behaviour there. That's a good thing if (as seems to be the case) it is agreed that nothing will break by opening the link in the same window. >Or perhaps a help link has target="_blank" and is >labelled with "opens in new window" -- which could be dangerous if a >user believed that label, only to lose her partly completed form. Such a label classifies as an authoring error, just as <a href="foo">this link blows up the world</a>, plus calling such "dangerous" is imo much too strongly put, more so because the user has deliberately enabled the config setting that prevents this. -- Spartanicus
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 09:29:34 UTC