Hello
How do i get around target="_blank" is not allowed in xtml strict?
Thanks
Mike
How do i get around target="_blank" is not allowed in xtml strict?
Thanks
Mike
-
-
Re: target
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:10:03 -0500, "Mike" <mike@nospam.ne t> declared in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
[color=blue]
> Hello[/color]
G'day.
[color=blue]
> How do i get around target="_blank" is not allowed in xtml strict?[/color]
You leave it up to me. If I want a new window (or tab) opened, I can do
it myself.
Your consideration is appreciated.
--
Mark Parnell
-
Re: target
Mike <mike@nospam.ne t> wrote:[color=blue]
> How do i get around target="_blank" is not allowed in xtml strict?[/color]
"Get around" it by not using it. This attribute was removed for a reason.
--
Michael Wilcox
mjwilco at yahoo dot com
Essential Tools for the Web Developer - http://mikewilcox.t35.com
Comment
-
Re: target
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:27:42 GMT, "Michael Wilcox"
<mjwilcoCANTHAV ESPAM@yahoo.com > wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Get around" it by not using it. This attribute was removed for a reason.[/color]
But not that one.
(Google)
Comment
-
Re: target
Mike wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hello
> How do i get around target="_blank" is not allowed in xtml strict?
> Thanks
> Mike
>
>[/color]
This was discussed a lot before (maybe not in this newsgroup but
definitively in alt.html).
Either switch to XHTML 1.0 transitional or drop the target attribute.
If the long term, I think it's better to find an alternative to
requested popups as more and more browsers have (and new versions will
have) contextmenu commands allowing them to open referenced
resources/links into a new tab, in a new window and this, in background
or not. E.g.: K-meleon 0.8.2 (and probably recent Mozilla-based browser
versions) can open any link in at least 5 different manners and it will
override target attribute.
DU
Comment
-
Re: target
"DU" <drunclear@hotW IPETHISmail.com > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:buq66c$9qn $1@news.eusc.in ter.net...[color=blue]
> Mike wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Hello
> > How do i get around target="_blank" is not allowed in xtml strict?
> > Thanks
> > Mike
> >
> >[/color]
>
> This was discussed a lot before (maybe not in this newsgroup but
> definitively in alt.html).
> Either switch to XHTML 1.0 transitional or drop the target attribute.
>
> If the long term, I think it's better to find an alternative to
> requested popups as more and more browsers have (and new versions will
> have) contextmenu commands allowing them to open referenced
> resources/links into a new tab, in a new window and this, in background
> or not. E.g.: K-meleon 0.8.2 (and probably recent Mozilla-based browser
> versions) can open any link in at least 5 different manners and it will
> override target attribute.
>
> DU[/color]
I have read some of these discussions and also googled for the topic for
some hours as I ran in the same recently. I see the point about
target="_blank" in connection with tabbed browsing and things like that.
There is just one point I consider as not consistent: There is a frameset
doctype. So, regardless of if you consider frames as bad or not, they are
part of the standards. So the standards should also provide a possibility to
navigate inside them. As they are now, I have to either use javascript or a
transitional doctype if I want to use frames; and both is worse than a
target attribute.
--
Markus
Comment
-
Re: target
"Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP #AMgmx.ch> wrote:
[color=blue]
>There is just one point I consider as not consistent: There is a frameset
>doctype. So, regardless of if you consider frames as bad or not, they are
>part of the standards. So the standards should also provide a possibility to
>navigate inside them.[/color]
They do. It's called the Transitional DTD.
[color=blue]
>As they are now, I have to either use javascript or a
>transitional doctype if I want to use frames; and both is worse than a
>target attribute.[/color]
If you are using frames then you are automatically writing (X)HTML
that is not in the spirit of Strict. In fact if you look in depth at
the Frameset DTD you will see that it's actually based on the
Transitional DTD (i.e. the content that goes inside the <noframes>
element follows Transitional not Strict rules). Transitional is what
you're supposed to use if you want to use the target attribute. So use
Transitional.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Comment
-
Re: target
Markus Ernst wrote:[color=blue]
> "DU" <drunclear@hotW IPETHISmail.com > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:buq66c$9qn $1@news.eusc.in ter.net...
>[color=green]
>> Mike wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> How do i get around target="_blank" is not allowed in xtml
>>> strict?[/color]
>>
>> Either switch to XHTML 1.0 transitional or drop the target
>> attribute.[/color]
>
> There is just one point I consider as not consistent:[/color]
It's perfectly consistent.
[color=blue]
> There is a frameset doctype.[/color]
Then why were you asking about target="_blank" ? That's used to try to
open a new window. So it's no wonder the answers that you received
were about new windows, and not frames.
[color=blue]
> So, regardless of if you consider frames as bad or not, they are
> part of the standards.[/color]
And those standards describe how to manipulate frames to the extent
possible. I don't write in xhtml, and am unfamiliar with the spec; I
can never find what I need in it. But perhaps the corresponding part
in html4 will help.
[color=blue]
> So the standards should also provide a possibility to navigate
> inside them.[/color]
As well they do.
[color=blue]
> As they are now, I have to either use javascript[/color]
bad idea, since not all clients will process js.
[color=blue]
> or a transitional doctype if I want to use frames;[/color]
Correct. You must transitional doctype for the documents included in a
frameset if you need the target attribute, which you almost certainly
will.
[color=blue]
> and both is worse than target attribute.[/color]
Not sure how to read this. You need the target attribute to use the
frameset. If you don't want to use target, then lose the frameset,
which is a good idea in any case.
--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
Comment
-
Re: target
Markus Ernst wrote:
[color=blue]
> "DU" <drunclear@hotW IPETHISmail.com > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:buq66c$9qn $1@news.eusc.in ter.net...
>[color=green]
>>Mike wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Hello
>>>How do i get around target="_blank" is not allowed in xtml strict?
>>>Thanks
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>This was discussed a lot before (maybe not in this newsgroup but
>>definitivel y in alt.html).
>>Either switch to XHTML 1.0 transitional or drop the target attribute.
>>
>>If the long term, I think it's better to find an alternative to
>>requested popups as more and more browsers have (and new versions will
>>have) contextmenu commands allowing them to open referenced
>>resources/links into a new tab, in a new window and this, in background
>>or not. E.g.: K-meleon 0.8.2 (and probably recent Mozilla-based browser
>>versions) can open any link in at least 5 different manners and it will
>>override target attribute.
>>
>>DU[/color]
>
>
> I have read some of these discussions and also googled for the topic for
> some hours as I ran in the same recently. I see the point about
> target="_blank" in connection with tabbed browsing and things like that.
>[/color]
The user gets more and more control over how documents should open. The
scripter and the web developer gets less and less power over how
documents should open. That's a clear, undeniable, indisputable trend
happening now in many browsers.
It was said loud and clear that MSIE 7 for windows would have tab
browsing; already MyIE2 has been supporting tab browsing for a long
time. It's already known that MSIE 6.05 SP2 for windows will give users
the ability to block, suppress unrequested popups just like so many
browsers do right now.
[color=blue]
> There is just one point I consider as not consistent: There is a frameset
> doctype. So, regardless of if you consider frames as bad or not, they are
> part of the standards. So the standards should also provide a possibility to
> navigate inside them. As they are now, I have to either use javascript or a
> transitional doctype if I want to use frames; and both is worse than a
> target attribute.
>[/color]
Frames are bad. After reading on the issue, I had no idea how much they
were bad. I am even beginning to think that iframes as well are not
recommendable or imply a considerable usability burden in a wide
majority of cases. My mind is not fully made up on the iframe issue though.
Overall, I'm convinced you get the most benefits of complying with W3C
web standards (code once, read anywhere; speed; interoperabilit y;
accessibility; etc..) by coding to strict definition more than you do by
choosing XHTML over HTML.
DU
DU
Comment
-
Re: target
"Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP #AMgmx.ch> wrote:
[color=blue]
> There is just one point I consider as not consistent: There is a
> frameset doctype. So, regardless of if you consider frames as bad
> or not, they are part of the standards.[/color]
If you wish to call W3C recommendations standards, yes. (Frames are not
part of the International Standard for HTML, but that's rather
irrelevant, since few people even heard of ISO HTML.)
[color=blue]
> So the standards should
> also provide a possibility to navigate inside them.[/color]
They do.
[color=blue]
> As they are
> now, I have to either use javascript or a transitional doctype if I
> want to use frames; and both is worse than a target attribute.[/color]
Pardon? The target attribute is part of the Transitional doctype. What
else do you want? What actual harm does it cause that you are said to
use the Transitional version when you use the target attribute? If it
makes you feel somehow impure, well, maybe you should. Frames,
especially as commonly used and implemented, are typically much worse
than a casual <font> or an occasional piece of text directly inside
<body>.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Comment
-
Re: target
"Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP #AMgmx.ch> wrote in
news:40113760$0 $4919$afc38c87@ news.easynet.ch :
[color=blue]
> provide a possibility to navigate inside them. As they are now, I have
> to either use javascript or a transitional doctype if I want to use
> frames; and both is worse than a target attribute.[/color]
I'm sorry; I really can't resist...
Part of that last phrase should be marked up as:
<span lang="en-gwb">both is worse</span>
Comment
-
Re: target
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earth link.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns947AD52 BAE2Eebohlmanom sdevcom@130.133 .1.4...[color=blue]
> "Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP #AMgmx.ch> wrote in
> news:40113760$0 $4919$afc38c87@ news.easynet.ch :
>[color=green]
> > provide a possibility to navigate inside them. As they are now, I have
> > to either use javascript or a transitional doctype if I want to use
> > frames; and both is worse than a target attribute.[/color]
>
> I'm sorry; I really can't resist...
>
> Part of that last phrase should be marked up as:
>
> <span lang="en-gwb">both is worse</span>[/color]
Sorry I am not a native English speaker - could you explain? I was googling
for "en-gwb" but did only find some dutch pages that do not help.
Anyway I saw I made a mistake and should apparently have written "both are
worse". If anybody feels insulted by bad English I apologize :-)
Thanks
Markus
Comment
-
Re: target
"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:jee2105r19 ngscqd3sve5sp3i 066n1s09i@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> "Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP #AMgmx.ch> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >There is just one point I consider as not consistent: There is a frameset
> >doctype. So, regardless of if you consider frames as bad or not, they are
> >part of the standards. So the standards should also provide a possibility[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> >navigate inside them.[/color]
>
> They do. It's called the Transitional DTD.
>[color=green]
> >As they are now, I have to either use javascript or a
> >transitional doctype if I want to use frames; and both is worse than a
> >target attribute.[/color]
>
> If you are using frames then you are automatically writing (X)HTML
> that is not in the spirit of Strict. In fact if you look in depth at
> the Frameset DTD you will see that it's actually based on the
> Transitional DTD (i.e. the content that goes inside the <noframes>
> element follows Transitional not Strict rules). Transitional is what
> you're supposed to use if you want to use the target attribute. So use
> Transitional.[/color]
Thanks everybody for your replies. I was not enough aware of this before.
Actually I would love to use position:fixed and/or overflow:scroll , but the
browser support is too poor. IE 5 and 6 will not disappear for years, and
some big ISPs even still distribute Netscape 4.x in their starter kits!
--
Markus
Comment
-
Re: target
"Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP #AMgmx.ch> wrote:[color=blue]
>"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earth link.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:Xns947AD5 2BAE2Eebohlmano msdevcom@130.13 3.1.4...[color=green]
>> "Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP #AMgmx.ch> wrote in
>> news:40113760$0 $4919$afc38c87@ news.easynet.ch :
>>[color=darkred]
>> > provide a possibility to navigate inside them. As they are now, I have
>> > to either use javascript or a transitional doctype if I want to use
>> > frames; and both is worse than a target attribute.[/color]
>>
>> I'm sorry; I really can't resist...
>>
>> Part of that last phrase should be marked up as:
>>
>> <span lang="en-gwb">both is worse</span>[/color]
>
>Sorry I am not a native English speaker - could you explain? I was googling
>for "en-gwb" but did only find some dutch pages that do not help.[/color]
"en" is English; en-XX normally means English as spoken in country XX.
So British English is en-GB, US English is en-US. However, I think
"gwb" stands for George W Bush...
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Comment
-
Re: target
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:40:25 +0100, Markus Ernst <derernst@NO#SP #AMgmx.ch>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earth link.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:Xns947AD52 BAE2Eebohlmanom sdevcom@130.133 .1.4...[color=green]
>> <span lang="en-gwb">both is worse</span>[/color]
>
> Sorry I am not a native English speaker - could you explain? I was
> googling
> for "en-gwb" but did only find some dutch pages that do not help.
>
> Anyway I saw I made a mistake and should apparently have written "both
> are
> worse". If anybody feels insulted by bad English I apologize :-)[/color]
It was a joke. GWB is George W. Bush, and this is a typical nonsensical
phrase he seems to burst forth on a pretty regular basis. I'm sure your
English is at least as good, if not gooder, than the US president.
Comment
Comment