- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:08:19 +0000 (GMT)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>
> (by email as it's been a bit laboured on the group.)
>
> "David Woolley"
> > > <a href="chicken.html" target="chicken" onclick="if (window.open)
> > > window.open('','chicken')">
> >
> > I think you need to explicitly return false in the no window.open
> > case.
>
> No, as then the link will do nothing meaning that the link is a do
> nothing link - surely bad - to script enabled with javascript people
I got that the wrong way round; you need to explicitly return true in the
no window.open case, and explicitly return false in the window.open case.
Assuming that no return works as return true, this will put chicken.html
in both the popup and mail window.
> target being deprecated only makes sense if window.open is also
> deprecated.
In general, I would say the correct approach for W3C would be to ensure
that there are declarative ways of doing the presentational things that
people want to do, like popups. As well as being too powerful for
security, scripts cause problems for machine processing by third party
tools (which includes search engines!).
By declarative ways, I mean there should be a CSSn property for a link that
hints that it should open a new window on browsers where it is meaningful
to so do. There might be a corresponding audio style that hints that
the document stack be popped as soon as the content of the linked document
is read.
Most scripting, other than validation, is used to implement features that
people think are missing from the language, rather than because a general
purpose programming language is the only possible solution.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 17:10:51 UTC