- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:32:43 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> By making target="_blank" non-functional by default, you're taking away the >> least-user-hostile approach from authors and forcing them to use the other >> alternatives, which just makes a bad situation worse. > > This isn't what the spec is suggesting. The text I added to the spec which > is what Henri is referring to would, if implemented, block _all_ new > author-requested windows, including those from window.open(). All the ways > of opening new windows go through this same algorithm, it's the only part > of the spec that creates a new window. I know from experience that forcing window.open() to reuse the same browsing context can actually create a far worse user experience in some cases. Although I have manually configured my browser to do so, and generally avoid sites that don't work for me, I'm more capable of working around the problems it creates when it occurs than a typical user. Such problems occur, for example, when a popup is used to offer some preference to a user, and altering that preference changes something in the parent window. If the new page had reused the same browsing context, the parent would no longer be there and it results in javascript errors. There is a slim chance that if all browsers stopped supporting popups by default, then it would force authors to consider other alternatives to popups, which would be great. But there's also a chance it would encourage users to switch to another browser that doesn't block the popups. However, there are many legacy pages that unfortunately depend on opening popups, so any solution would need to handle it in a way that doesn't break the web. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 09:33:21 UTC