- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:44:57 -0400
- To: "'Justin Anthony Knapp'" <justinkoavf@gmail.com>, <john@netpurgatory.com>
- Cc: "'N-at-Work'" <info@n-at-work.net>, <public-html@w3.org>
The behavior of _blank, _self, etc. is only defined in HTML as referring to browsing contexts. However a particular UA chooses to implement that is up to them. _blank, _self, etc. have meaning, even within a browser like Lynx. _tab does not. It just so happens that the most popular use case for _blank is to open a new tab/window, but that does not mean that this is within the scope of the HTML specification. J.Ja From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Justin Anthony Knapp Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:43 AM To: john@netpurgatory.com Cc: N-at-Work; public-html@w3.org Subject: Re: No tabbed browsing in HTML 5? It seems that most browsers have an option to "open in new window" or "open in new tab" and that is probably best handled as a end-user issue. I understand your rationale, though. And, as pointed out, someone will find a work-around: some script bookmarklet or Firefox extension that opens the _tabs in _windows and vice-versa. The notion of declaring parts of the browser is a bit silly to me. Why not _new or _newdocument or somesuch to signify that this link is probably not supposed to replace this document's display, but can be displayed however the end user and the permissions of his program allow? -JAK On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:33, John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com> wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, N-at-Work wrote: So what do you think about ?_tab? as an additional keyword. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#target6 + I for one really don't see how that is a legit thing for authors to decide. Seems completely a user agent decision to me. (Not to mention terminal based browsers like lynx and screen readers that would have no reasonable way to support it.) I can barely remember how I used the web before tabs, but I still wouldn't want to give control of that to the html author (and as an author I wouldn't want that control either). If it were added to the spec, then browsers would have to come up with a way to ignore them which seems like it means extra work has to get done by everyone. -- *Shalom and agape to all* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara .______ | \_____| | )_(*__| | /_____| For Taiwan (ROC), Tibet, West Papua, and Western Sahara
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 16:46:05 UTC