W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2000

Re: the 'target' attribute

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas.sicking@milcraft.se>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <008001c012b6$32bf0060$3110f7d4@ericsson.se>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Dave J Woolley wrote:
> > From: Tapio Markula [SMTP:tapio1@gamma.nic.fi]
> >
> > I agree. The attribute 'target' is reasonable also, when opening a
> > temporary window but keeping the main window background.
> >
> [DJW:]  Popups are often misused.  Very few
> pages I've seen with them should have used them,
> in my view.  They are often an attempt to shift
> power from the user to the advertiser. (The problem
> is, of course, that that's what the advertisers want,
> in spite of advice from design experts that it is
> counter-productive, so removing target will force
> them towards scripting.)

Just because something can be missused dosn't mean that it shouldn't be in
the standards. If people get annoyed by ad-popups then sites will not use
them. Serious advertisers check what people think of thier ads...

If you get annoyed enough don't visit the site.

> > In my mind IFRAME has not the same main problems as FRAMESET. IFRAME is
in
> > fact an embedded object like using OBJECT element or APPLET. BUT this
> > matter seems not te be clear to members of W3C. They are OVERstrict.
> >
> [DJW:]  Surely IFRAME allows the contents to be
> changed, thus breaking bookmarking, one of the reasons
> for avoiding frames.

All dynamic pages breaks bookmarking. In fact most browsers can't even
handle going "back" to a dynamic page (IE is the only browser I know of that
handles this, and even that is not 100%).

/ Jonas Sicking
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2000 15:20:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:44 GMT