www.webdeveloper.com
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: target="_blank" - oops (from transitional to strict)

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    330
    Rubbing my eyes after a long nap - <hehe> are we on a snipe hunt?

    I do think the world of incompatibility between browser-renderings (if that actually means anything) is unfortunate (to be a bit deadpan and civil about it <g>). And it can be funny (not to mention difficult for me) to read standards, say, on W3C - Charles, thanks for that very useful long quote!

    As for anal-retentive, if nobody's yet figured out that I am, when it comes to standards - it has to do with semantics, which concerns meanings. Communication being my lifelong passion, I generally hope for precision and exactness in meaing, and in communication about meanings, so of course my predilection becomes obvious <SNORTLE!>

    Hey, guys, I don't know how tolerant the moderator here is of sniping, but you guys, besides being delightfully helpful, do occasionally, I think, succumb to the temptation to snipe, especially when sniped at. <g>.

    I just don't wnat to lose the great parts of this thread. But a new one could always be started.

    Perhaps it's my female predilection that leads me to wonder how males can trigger so easily when sniped at. It's not uncommon for females just to laugh and let go. (I gotta admit, though, that not all females necessarily have that same tendency; we can be just as snipy as, sometimes worse than, the men!)

    I see I'm babbling, so I'll probably shut up till tomorrow at least - hey, I need to go make use of what I'm being taught here!

    Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:03:39
    My site is my home-and-playground
    http://www.coherentdog.org/
    Carol W

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,637
    Originally posted by ray326
    Or is it that you prefer the chaos as a form of job security?
    On the contrary... I prefer a browser that has the intelligence to make a simple decision to adopt a default in the absence of an explicit specification. Naturally, such a default should be the client scripting language that started it all -- JavaScript. If the coder doesn't like the default, then let them give an explicit specification. This is not chaos. This is harmony.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    12,270
    I'm always amazed at just how many people there are who consider themselves to be smarter and wiser than the combined efforts of everybody at the W3C.
    “The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
    —Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,637
    It is not a question of "smarter/wiser", in this case. It is a matter of common sense. Yes, I've had conversations with many, many people (far more in number than the number involved in the drafting of such standards in the first place) that feel the W3C demonstrates a gross lack of ordinary and common sense -- and I agree with those people.

    The thing you are unable to understand (and others that have adopted your practices), Charles (and I speak from having watched for about two years worth of your diatribes with various members of this board), is the difference between having standards (which is a good thing) and how those standards are applied. The difference is analogous to a democracy and communism, respectively.

    I'll not reply further to this thread as, from experience, such replies are futile.

    Cheers.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    330
    Originally posted by phpnovice


    <snip>

    I'll not reply further to this thread as, from experience, such replies are futile.

    Cheers.
    Well, please don't go away. I'll look for you in other threads. I believe you have something there, about common sense and standards - but don't know nearly enough to detect detailed content in what you're saying, nor in what Charles is saying, either! Meaning, I literally don't know what you're talking about <g>.

    Seems to me a browser should provide defaults, and also that standards should be meaningful and not "ridiculous," whatever that is! I just don't have anything like enough experience to know which is what.

    I miss target="_blank" - but neither you nor Charles responded to that aspect of my question. I gather that "forcing" a new browser window to open might really be an offensive thing to do to a person visiting your site, or even following a link from your site to another. And that the current W3C standard for HTML 4.01 Strict doesn't allow either use; that it's intended to work with frames (and believe it or not, I understand that!

    Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:07:10
    My site is my home-and-playground
    http://www.coherentdog.org/
    Carol W

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,637
    Originally posted by CarolW
    Well, please don't go away. I'll look for you in other threads.
    Sorry, I did not mean to say that I would not reply to you. Always willing to reply to someone that has the ability to be reasonable.
    Originally posted by CarolW
    I miss target="_blank" - but neither you nor Charles responded to that aspect of my question.
    Yes, that is an example of one of the things that makes me scratch my head where the W3C is concerned. I've never gotten a really good answer as to why the W3C turned there noses up to both frames and targets. I say they turned their noses up at these (and other) HTML entities based on the fact that they are not part of the so-called "strict" standard.
    Last edited by phpnovice; 01-31-2005 at 03:01 PM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    12,270
    The W3C hasn't really turned its back on frames, and they haven't asked us to stop using the "target" attribute. It's just that they are working on XFrames, the next upgrade.
    “The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
    —Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,637
    Originally posted by Charles
    ...they are working on XFrames, the next upgrade.
    Whoa! As long as we're speaking reasonably, I'll jump back in here.

    I though I saw somebody post a statement that there would be no new versions for HTML, as it is supposedly "stabilized" -- or some such.

    EDIT: Oh, I just read a bit of it... It is for XML -- not HTML. So, the fact remains that frames and targets were purposefully excluded from "strict" HTML 4.01.
    Last edited by phpnovice; 01-31-2005 at 04:20 PM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,771
    And there is a reason for such. HTML 4 was created to bring back universiality to the web. By HTML 3.2, there was so much inconsitancy on the web that something needed to be done. HTML 4.01 brings us back to the core idea of a markup language, which is to mark up documents in a meaningful way and so that computers can understand it. HTML 4.01 Strict is this reached goal, a markup language that can be utilized by a myriad of user-agents.

    The problem is that Frames become an issue with this. How does an audiobrowser deal with frames? Or a search engine? or other devices. Since this becomes such an issue, and the goal of HTML 4.01 Strict is to be the most accessible markup language, frames were removed. In addition, the target attribute was removed since it's purpose was to target frames. Frames are still available, however, and can be used it needed. Both HTML and XHTML 1.0 include Frames support. But the W3C wishes to rectify the problems with frames in its new technology, XFrames.

    Frames weren't removed because the W3C was being illogical or picky.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    330
    Charles, PHPnovice and MstrBob, it's wonderful for me to watch you conversing about these things. It helps orient me to what I'm doing, and to thinking more about how I might want to do it. Although, no question, the road is long for me, and at my age, I might stop at a certain point, since my primary interest is really communicating about life, from my site, rather than the deeper questions concerning accessible web design, or even gorgeous web design!

    And I don't think anybody need take offense at a difference of opinion; not at the level of knowledge you people have.

    The more I read here, the gladder I am I decided to move to Strict (HTML 4.01) from Transitional, but, again, that will take me quite a while. I'm getting the idea, though, again thanks to help from many people, for now, primarily, you, MstrBob.

    My next lesson needs to be, knowing when to leave the computer long enough so my eyes continue to work <g>.

    Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:01:43
    My site is my home-and-playground
    http://www.coherentdog.org/
    Carol W

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles