- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas.sicking@milcraft.se>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
Dave J Woolley wrote: > > From: Tapio Markula [SMTP:tapio1@gamma.nic.fi] > > > > I agree. The attribute 'target' is reasonable also, when opening a > > temporary window but keeping the main window background. > > > [DJW:] Popups are often misused. Very few > pages I've seen with them should have used them, > in my view. They are often an attempt to shift > power from the user to the advertiser. (The problem > is, of course, that that's what the advertisers want, > in spite of advice from design experts that it is > counter-productive, so removing target will force > them towards scripting.) Just because something can be missused dosn't mean that it shouldn't be in the standards. If people get annoyed by ad-popups then sites will not use them. Serious advertisers check what people think of thier ads... If you get annoyed enough don't visit the site. > > In my mind IFRAME has not the same main problems as FRAMESET. IFRAME is in > > fact an embedded object like using OBJECT element or APPLET. BUT this > > matter seems not te be clear to members of W3C. They are OVERstrict. > > > [DJW:] Surely IFRAME allows the contents to be > changed, thus breaking bookmarking, one of the reasons > for avoiding frames. All dynamic pages breaks bookmarking. In fact most browsers can't even handle going "back" to a dynamic page (IE is the only browser I know of that handles this, and even that is not 100%). / Jonas Sicking
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2000 15:20:33 UTC