W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: [techs] EXTENDED Techniques Teleconference 17 November 2004

From: Doug Gibson <doug.gibson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:39:24 -0500
Message-ID: <30f68ab40411210839932d5fc@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I realize that one of the most common uses for javascript URIs is to
spawn content in a new window. However, as I suggested some time back,
we should avoid using popups or window.open() in such examples unless
specifically talking about popups. This was because of the complex
issues of popup blockers, and the issue of standards and doctypes has
since be brought up. The issue of javascript URIs at hand will easily
get lost in such a discussion unless popups are addressed as a
separate issue unto themselves.

Why not use a generic example in this section to prevent such confusion:

<a href="javascript:doSomething()">

vs

<a href="fallback_URL.html" onclick="doSomething()">

On the issue of popups, there is simply too much bad behavior among
browsers as well as third party popup blockers to assure that you can
tell if a popup has been blocked and serve alternate content.

Opera 6 would kill any script as soon as window.open was encountered.

Some popup blockers allow the target window to open, but close it for
you (see http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/network/pow.htm as
one example, but there are others I've seen and heard mentioned but
cannot remember)

-Doug Gibson
Received on Sunday, 21 November 2004 16:39:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT