- From: Gez Lemon <gl@juicystudio.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:50 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> There is no way to tell if a window has been successfully opened and > the content available to the user, hence there are no scenarios in > which it is possible to stop the navigation - since there's no need > to, as the original script works, we don't have a problem. But we do have a problem; the target attribute is not legal in HTML 4.01 Strict, and XHTML 1.0 Strict. Take the target attribute out, and you need to add this.href (as James suggested). Without the event handler returning false, the window will open in the current window as well as the new window, so this technique is only suitable for people using a frameset DOCTYPE, or a transitional DOCTYPE. Best regards, Gez _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com Keeping developers informed! IWA/HWG Member ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Ley" <jim.ley@gmail.com> To: "James Craig" <wai-wg@cookiecrook.com> Cc: "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [techs] EXTENDED Techniques Teleconference 17 November 2004 > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:57:17 -0600, James Craig <wai-wg@cookiecrook.com> wrote: > > James Craig wrote: > > Sure it can. By assigning the window.open() return value to a variable, > > the script has a reference to the new window object. > > there are numerous pop-up blockers in existence which set the return > value to the current window, or a newly created iframe, or ... > There's lots of pop-up blocker people who have specifically designed > your "test" to say it succeeded when it failed. You have to deal with > these. > > > There is a working version here. > > <http://cookiecrook.com/AIR/2003/train/xmp/popup/popup.htm> > > Fails for me with one of the above types of popup blockers. > > There is no way to tell if a window has been successfully opened and > the content available to the user, hence there are no scenarios in > which it is possible to stop the navigation - since there's no need > to, as the original script works, we don't have a problem. > > Jim. > >
Received on Sunday, 21 November 2004 14:58:55 UTC