- From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:20:58 -0700
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
>> That is a great reason to allow target ... > Yes, that is exactly why target is already permitted, ... http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-a-element http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/browsers.html#the-window-object http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/browsers.html#the-rules-for-choosing-a-browsing-context-given-a-browsing-context-name Fine, Shows I haven't looked there in long time and am very glad to see @target and .open() treated so completely and so close to consistently. For example common link to 5.1.6 Browsing context names. It is not clear to me that encouraged user preferences described for @target shall also apply to .open(). How about? User agent implementors are encouraged to provide ways for users to configure the user agent to overide the author's request for a new target context using @target or window.open() as follows: * always reuse the current browsing context. (as if target='_self'' with reset name), * defeat the author's intent completely and refuse to open a new context. "If the user agent has been configured such that in this instance it will not find a browsing context" (? not sure abut this one for <a> and .open(). * use @target and document.open() as authored to allow creation and reuse of a new browsing context in a new connected window (follow author's request); * use @target and document.open() as authored except create and reuse new tab for target context (new context, via new connected browser tab instead of new browser window ). mixing sandboxing, noreferrer, etc in there mixes this up some but some of the authoring can't be changed by user prefs, right? Thanks and Best Regards, Joe
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:24:05 UTC