W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2004

Re: Problem with 'target-new' property and alternative suggestion

From: Justin Wood (Callek) <116057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:58:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4145EDF0.60504@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
To: daniel.pelsmaeker@zonnet.nl, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>

DaniŽl Pelsmaeker wrote:

>Benjamin D. Smedberg wrote:
>  
>
>>CSS selectors could even be part of the UA stylesheet to implement these
>>"rel" values.
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, that's my biggest point against the target-new property: the
>example provided with the description of this property shows how this
>property can be used to override the effect in a CSS stylesheet of a
>website. I think that most users don't want the website to specify where and
>if any links are targeted in new windows/'tabs'. Not all websites have
>friendly uses for these (target-...) rules.
>Further, a stylesheet is for styling, and the targets of links (frames,
>windows, tabs) should be specified with the link and not by using a style
>class and selectors. These are properties that are specific for each link,
>and they would (and should) never be changed when the website's style(sheet)
>changes. I can't imagine a website builder who would ever want to change the
>target-new property for the links that he wrote in his website. To make the
>website work without a stylesheet (or with another stylesheet, or on a
>text/speech browser) the builder would just use these target-... properties
>in the style attribute of each link. And IMO that's now very stylish.
>
>- DaniŽl Pelsmaeker
>
>  
>

Well the solution with CSS is much more "fair" than the scripting one, 
where window.open is widely used, even in onclick and similar.

a.tabdefault { target-new: something; }
a.windowdefault { target-new: something; }
a.samedefault { target-new: something; }
a, a.default { target-new: inherit; }

are just some examples on how you can specify (exactly as rel) where you 
want target new to point to, with these the user can easily re-define 
what he wants on your website, and ensures that you wont be "popping" up 
stuff completely un-expectedly to the user.

The "work-arounds" in place, and their in-ability to be "over-ridden 
easily" is the core problem with NOT doing it in CSS, and is the core 
reason why the CSS solution is easier, if we want a "sidebar" solution, 
just do (for instance mozilla extension)  |{ target-new: -moz-sidebar; 
}|  why overdefine what can be and is semantically possible, and make 
work harder for the USER (and UA developers) to create and maintain a 
'working' system, with stylistic behaviors.

~Justin Wood
Received on Monday, 13 September 2004 18:59:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:32 GMT