- From: todd fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:06:18 -0800
- To: <www-validator@w3.org>
On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 09:38 AM, Jim Ley wrote: > "todd fahrner" <fahrner@pobox.com> >> On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 09:15 , Liam Quinn wrote: >> >> I lost the 'let the user decide' argument a while back in one of my >> projects, but also wanted to avoid 'target'. I asked a knowledgeable >> associate for the best javascript approach; i.e., one that preserves > the >> integrity of the link w/o javascript, minimizes script clutter in >> html, >> etc. He cooked up this, a close variant of which I've now got in a >> linked script for site-wide availability: >> <http://glish.com/misc/fahrner.html>. > > A few notes on it: > > It won't work in a large number of browsers (the link will become > a dead > no-operation) - this is because window.open does nothing, but the > return > false succeeds, example browsers , pocket IE, AvantGo always, Mozilla, > IE, Opera under configuration, other browsers will just error and may > well recover to navigate to the url. Script is now updated to confirm whether window was spawned before returning false. Limited testing suggests viability - want to throw your worst at it? >> There's one bit of 'target' functionality that this script fails to >> capture: the spawned window can get lost behind others. After the >> initial load, subsequent ones fail to focus the target. Neither my >> associate nor i could come up with an elegant, cross-browser means of >> achieving this. We resort, inelegantly, to sticking >> onload="self.focus()" in the body of all of the targeted documents. If >> you want to link to docs that you don't control, you are out of luck. > > and self.focus() is not a solution in many scenarios, and is a > WCAG 1.0 A > violation, so is clearly not an option. Can you give me a chapter-and-verse on that? I can't find such a prohibition. Even if there exists such a reference, I'll need further convincing that, given the full context, its author(s) would stand by it. Of course, opening new windows at all ("until user agents" yadda yadda) is a violation, so we're probably moot. > There's no reliable method that > provides reliable fallback without the target attribute, and the > failure > scenarios are IMO serious enough that you just can't do it. Still if > it's not in standard, it's surely not there for a reason, > subverting that > with script just can't be sensible. I think you are too ready to ascribe godlike qualities to human spec/guideline authors. ps: I didn't see this reply at first; sorry about my subsequent suggestion to "read the thread", Jim.
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 16:06:29 UTC