[sam]

I was of the opinion that XHTML 1.0 Strict said no new windows allowed whatsoever and that the user makes the choice. So using javascript to circumvent that may be helpful in getting validated but doesn't necessarily make it correct. Its just that the validator can not see that. But if the standards allow opening new windows but not using the target attribute then TJ its time for But target attribute is coming back or at least the following link claims so...

http://learningthewo...ml-with-target/

TJSingleton, on Mar 6 2007, 08:28 AM, said:

I'd challenge that statement. The whole point of taking it out of xHTML is to increase it's semantics. Remove the presentation and behavior from the markup. Opening a new window on click is a behavior what javascript is intended for. The validator doesn't mark it as wrong be cause of the action of opening a new window, but because the act of opening a new window does not belong in the markup.

Also, even if javascript is off, your site will still work. I don't see any reason not to "progressively enhance" your site, with specific links opening in external windows.

[TJSingleton]

Although the module seems specifies that it is a frame target,

<!-- render in this frame --> 
<!ENTITY % FrameTarget.datatype "CDATA" >

http://www.w3.org/Ma...ml-target-1.mod

It seems it would be ok to use target to open a new window, according to http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/...#s_targetmodule

Quote

The content of a frame can specify destination targets for a selection. This module adds the target attribute to the area and link defining elements. This is defined as a separate module so it can be included in documents that will be included in frames and documents that use the target feature to open a new window.

I am very shocked at this. Everything else seems to tie the target function to frames, except the aforementioned.

[sam]

Either ways I am not an expert and certainly don't know about things as much as the pro's here or should I say not even close. So I can safely say the discussion has gone far beyond my reach.... Anyways its nice to know whats happening.

[Ryan Fait]

sam, on Mar 6 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

I was of the opinion that XHTML 1.0 Strict said no new windows allowed whatsoever and that the user makes the choice. So using javascript to circumvent that may be helpful in getting validated but doesn't necessarily make it correct. Its just that the validator can not see that. But if the standards allow opening new windows but not using the target attribute then TJ its time for But target attribute is coming back or at least the following link claims so...

http://learningthewo...ml-with-target/

This is BS at its finest. XHTML is for structure. JavaScript is for behavior. Just because HTML used to support the opening of new browser windows (a behavior), doesn't mean that the proper method to open a new window (JavaScript) should be avoided. The target attribute is imposes onto JS like the font tag imposes onto CSS. I say let the user decide where to mix things up, instead of giving the syntax that luxury.

This post has been edited by Ryan Fait: 08 March 2007 - 05:55 AM

[James Mitchell]

I too am no expert, but I am under the mindset that: if it is proper (which I agree) to seperate behaviour and presentation from the markup then why not make those attributes inaccessible. For example, if target=_blank is a behaviour (which it is), then the attribute target should be inaccessible from markup and only accessible from JS. Maybe that's the point of web standards, but it seems to me that it would make a whole lot more sense to just make it so people can't use it. There are a million unprofessional designers and developers who do not know the difference, this would at least indirectly educate them in the proper way to use markup, syntax, CSS, and JS. For those who do not know any better it isn't there fault that the markup allows for such things to happen, but why not stop it!

[Ben Abrams]

JPMitchell, on Mar 8 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

I too am no expert, but I am under the mindset that: if it is proper (which I agree) to seperate behaviour and presentation from the markup then why not make those attributes inaccessible. For example, if target=_blank is a behaviour (which it is), then the attribute target should be inaccessible from markup and only accessible from JS. Maybe that's the point of web standards, but it seems to me that it would make a whole lot more sense to just make it so people can't use it. There are a million unprofessional designers and developers who do not know the difference, this would at least indirectly educate them in the proper way to use markup, syntax, CSS, and JS. For those who do not know any better it isn't there fault that the markup allows for such things to happen, but why not stop it!

i agree 100%

[sypher]

Maybe the updates w3c will do with xhtml should solve this problem. Because its very annoying

[Ryan Fait]

Yeah. I think it would be a great idea for a browser to see that there is a doctype of XHTML strict and respond to it appropriately if there were errors.

If my car ran like browsers, I could piss in the gas tank and it would give me 50 extra horsepower.

[TJSingleton]

Start serving xhtml as xml and you can get all the error messages you want

And while there is a part of me that agrees, we also have to keep in mind that part of the reason the web became so popular is the ease of writing html.

[Ryan Fait]

TJSingleton, on Mar 9 2007, 05:35 AM, said:

Start serving xhtml as xml and you can get all the error messages you want

And while there is a part of me that agrees, we also have to keep in mind that part of the reason the web became so popular is the ease of writing html.

The XML tag shouldn't say to a browser, "Hey, look at me harder because I have a line of text at the top of my page."

The ease of writing HTML? That's laughable... DreamWeaver, FrontPage and GoLive. WYSIWYG applications have taken advantage of semantics for the worse. Coding is like communism. If there is rebellion, problems should arise. I'm not talking about society, I'm referring to a language that uses merely 100 tags. If those tags can't be used properly by everybody, we're delaying the advancement of the internet.

If only HTML performed liked PHP with regards to errors.