- From: Justin Wood <Callek@juno.com>
- Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:00:26 -0500
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Cc: Videolego@aol.com
(warning a bit long) I firstly want to say, I did take the time to scim through the archives of this list to ensure I don't frustrate all of you with a very repeated question Though this has been brought up before, I will cite old(er) messages and provide counter arguments, from both sides (I hope). It is in my opinion that the target attribute should be in HTML 4.01 strict with the following guideline, only the built-in uses for target should be recognized, (_blank, _top, etc.) It is my understanding there is currently no CSS1, CSS2, or proposed CSS3 property to achieve this. If I am wrong would someone please correct me, and I will retract my statement(s) here. each source will be citied with a certain number of *'s and refferenced at the bottom of this mail. I feel Joe Kaczmarek (*) had it correct, target does not neccessarily mean "Frames", there could be possibilities for non-visual UA's to open a _blank window/interface, to their discretion... > It's my understanding that targetting, opening windows and so on is > putatively the realm of scripting/DOM, not hard-coded HTML semantics. > Thus, with proper UA support for HTML's OBJECT element, DOM, and > CSS-2, frames will be truly obsolete in every respect. We're not > there yet, of course. ~Todd Fahrner (**) The realm of Scripting/DOM to me, is more a way to handle user inter-action and prefferences in a certain page. Proper UA support for the methods 'target' (attrib) currently supports by means of things like _blank, and _top do not mean anything if the WG for CSS and/or HTML do not provide alternate means. There are some TABLE properties that were not deprecated since CSS 1 does not have the methods to support all of it, as is said in the spec. >< Joe Kaczmarek's full mail (***) That is one of the big issues for the 'target' attrib, if a user creates a FRAMESET for themselves, suppose their UA supports frames but not bookmarks (hypothetical) so they manually create a framset doc with the homepage as the first line, a form's input line and a bit JS to navigate, and a line or two for their favorites, who are we to have a script run that says "if (top!=self) ..." that would be very frustrating to the end user, I for one, never want a page I visit to AUTO-break out of a frame, I want the option. which brings me to my next cite: > Why not do something like this? > > <a href="foobar.html" onclick="open_new_window('foobar.html')">Sample > web site</a> ~Jim Correia (****) The reason why not, is partly like I said above, and what about those PDA's for instance, (or tablet PC's for that matter) which DO support multiple windows, but however since there is no mouse, DO NOT support onclick, since if the UA does not have access to a device, such as a mouse, they can still be conformant without supporting it's methods. >< see two sources (*|*) (*|**) I agree with most of what was said, but shouldnt HTML default to, "allow unless CSS has an alternative), I can see a bit more lee-way in this idea with XHTML and XML since they allow alternate methods around the standards. >< David J Woolley [DJW] (*|***) Sure it can be abused, but what about all the legitimate reasons for it. I for one, have had a habit of leaving a link on my index.html (entrance) page to allow users to break out of another websites frame, and on any external link I have had a habit of using target _blank with a note that it opens in a new window. When I visit a website, that is my expected behavior, I get annoyed when the href of a link is Javascript, I get annoyed when I expect to still be in one site, and click an external link and am no longer in that site, but in the same window, makes for confusing practice. Also as a website designer, when you have links elsewhere, you _want_ your users/viewers to have (quick) access to your page after they click a pop-up link, not everyone even knows there is a 'back' button. When getting deep into another wbsites architechture the back-button can even become annoying to some. All I ask is for functionality to be legal in Strict at least until it is presented in (a public) CSS format. Comments/Questions welcome, I think I covered all original points (which mostly have been repeated on this list) as well as provide new points of view. ~Justin Wood --------------------------------------- (*) - Joe Kaczmarek -- Fri, 05 May 2000 17:17:46-0400 -- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict DTD missing an important attribute -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000May/0039.html (**) - Todd Fahrner -- Fri, 5 May 2000 14:36:19-0700 -- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict DTD missing an important attribute -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000May/0040.html (***) - Joe Kaczmarek -- Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:08:46-0400 (EDT) -- Target attribute in STRICT DTD -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Aug/0116.html (****) - Jim Correia -- Fri, 1 Sep 2000 21:18:32-0400 -- RE: the 'target' attribute -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0004.html (*|*) - Timothy J. Luoma -- Sun, 3 Mar 2002 00:24:20-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) -- Re: Target, or opening a new instance of a UA with a link -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002Mar/0007.html (*|**) - Thomas Hurst -- Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:08:52+0000 -- Re: Target, or opening a new instance of a UA with a link -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002Mar/0009.html (*|***) - David J Woolley -- Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:37:22+0100 -- RE: the 'target' attribute -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Aug/0120.html
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2004 13:12:12 UTC