W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2002

Re: target attribute of anchor tags

From: Bob Rosenberg <webmaster@rockmug.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:05:42 -0400
Message-Id: <p05111603b9787b85a252@[]>
To: "Daniel Terry" <rrowv@usa.net>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
At 21:35 -0400 on 08/07/2002, Daniel Terry wrote about target 
attribute of anchor tags:

>     When validating a page I was working on last night, I noticed 
>something a little odd.  My page ( 
><http://www.cs.iupui.edu/~dsterry/n307/index.html>http://www.cs.iupui.edu/~dsterry/n307/index.html ) 
>validates fine on HTML 4.01 - Strict except the TARGET attribute of 
>any anchor tags I used.  I realize it will validate under HTML 4.01 
>- Transitional with the TARGET attributes there, but it seems odd to 
>me that such a basic thing does not conform to the standards.  Other 
>than resorting to JavaScript, there is no other way to insure that a 
>link will open in a new window as is often desirable for outside 
>links without using a TARGET="_blank" attribute.  Why would this not 
>be allowed as part of the HTML 4.01 - Strict spec?  I can understand 
>nearly all of the compliance rules in the validate, but just not 
>this one.  Why is it there and does it really need to be?

I do not think that TARGET should/could be a valid subparm for ANCHOR 
Tags (A NAME) since their sole purpose is to provide a target for a 
URL Reference tag (A HREF) with the #target-name after the 
Domain.Page.HTML parm designating where on the page to scroll to. The 
use of a URL Reference tag would cause a new page to possibly get 
loaded and would use the TARGET parm to designate what window/frame 
to do the load into). I agree that TARGET is needed for REFERENCE 
Tags (so long as you are not a W3C "Frames are bad and should be 
depreciated and you should not be allowed to open new windows" ivory 
tower non-designer type).

BTW: You might want to edit the above index page referenced above 
since the TITLE (and Header) reads

Beggining Java Programming - N307

I think you really mean Be*G*inning not Be*GG*ining <g>

Bob Rosenberg
RockMUG Webmaster
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 16:07:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:34 UTC