- From: Charlie Reis <creis@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:32:00 -0700
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Charlie Reis <creis@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius < >> svartman95@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 07:32:34PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: >> >> > Please don't encourage yet more sites to open new tabs when I didn't >> ask >> >> > for it. >> > > I don't see this as any different from using target=_blank or window.open. > The same popup restrictions would apply. This link type wouldn't make > much sense on a same-window navigation, in my opinion. > > >> >> It's merely a new browsing context IIUC, not necessarily a new window >> >> (frame, tab, tile or whatever it's called this year). Someone that >> >> understands the codebase of a modern browser could even make the back >> >> button work, although he would have to restrict write access to the >> history >> >> stack or tree as well, for security reasons. >> > >> > He's saying he wants it to force target=_blank, though. >> >> That doesn't seem necessary. Why not navigate the current window to a >> new document in an unrelated browsing context? >> >> Adam >> > > That would hit all the problems Michal brought up, where you might target > an existing window or iframe, causing existing references to the window to > no longer be valid. That could be harder for browser vendors to implement. > I do think it would be cleanest to have it open in a new window, using > target=_blank. > > Charlie > Any other feedback on this proposal? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Links_to_Unrelated_Browsing_Contexts Thanks, Charlie
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 21:32:30 UTC