W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-85

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:20:58 -0700
Message-ID: <3764795022E84D19857845BF58A953BD@joe1446a4150a8>
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, ...




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 
"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,
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:24:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC