- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 13:04:39 +1100
- To: Abram Wiebe <ethanpet113@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mwjWR4DMMOUneJRQtV45cV_KZDETX4BG3jdvgZ04EOeQ@mail.gmail.com>
I've registered https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20583 to properly introduce @download into the W3C spec. I therefore think we don't need target=_download. Abram: are you happy with this solution or is there a reason to prefer the _download @target value? Cheers, Silvia. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 04/01/2013 04:14 , Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > >> An author is expected to know whether I would prefer to download a >> resource or simply open it normally. This strikes me as unlikely. >> > > I don't think so. Obviously this could be used stupidly, but that would > just cause the site to shoot itself in the foot so I doubt it will be used > overly poorly. > > The default situation is that activating a link follows it, and users have > an option to download it instead. This just reverses the situation. As an > author-driven way of specifying a different default behaviour it is exactly > similar to target=_blank except that _blank is used annoyingly wrongly > altogether too often whereas I'm pretty sure that that won't be the case > for @download. In fact @download can be seen as just target=_download with > the ability to specify the file name. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > >
Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 02:05:26 UTC