- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:33:43 +0200
- To: Bob Rosenberg <webmaster@rockmug.org>
- cc: Daniel Terry <rrowv@usa.net>, www-validator@w3.org
Bob Rosenberg <webmaster@rockmug.org> wrote: >I agree that TARGET is needed for REFERENCE Tags (so long as you are not >a W3C "Frames are bad and should be depreciated and you should not be >allowed to open new windows" ivory tower non-designer type). If this isn't the list for discussing the pros and cons of the target attribute, it certainly is not the list for insulting those with carefully considered _technical_ reservations about the use of frames and target attributes with the value "_new"! Please take that particular discussion elsewhere. Given your apparent opinion on the issue, might I suggest you carefully consider -- in best Advocatus Diaboli style -- what arguments might persuade /you/ that frames/target are best avoided and let public-evangelist@w3.org know. A dissenting point of view would be very valuable in finding the best way to communicate best practices to the general public. -- I have lobbied for the update and improvement of SGML. I've done it for years. I consider it the jewel for which XML is a setting. It does deserve a bit or polishing now and then. -- Len Bullard
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 16:34:08 UTC