Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Internet Technologies :

Re: [Stealth] Minor modifications needed

Quote Reply
Re: [Stealth] Minor modifications needed
Well, 95% of browsers are IE, and the remaining browsers are Netscape, Opera and Mozilla.
If these browsers are supported by a site I say it IS cross-browser compatible.
Also as you said only OLD browsers wasn't compatible with _blank.
Furthermore if a browser is not compatible with _blank usage, then it's not compatible with standards.

Finally I don't afraid, that any kind of usage of _blank would result cross-browser incompatibility...

Best regards,
Webmaster33


Paid Support
from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...

Last edited by:

webmaster33: Mar 21, 2003, 4:01 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [webmaster33] Minor modifications needed In reply to
In Reply To:
Well, 95% of browsers are IE, and the remaining browsers are Netscape, Opera and Mozilla.
If these browsers are supported by a site I say it IS cross-browser compatible.
Also as you said only OLD browsers wasn't compatible with _blank.
Furthermore if a browser is not compatible with _blank usage, then it's not compatible with standards.

Finally I don't afraid, that any kind of usage of _blank would result cross-browser incompatibility...


The current Standards for HTML 4.01 as published by the W3C does not include target="_blank" or any other form of targetting for any link that is not inside a frameset. Target= is part of frameset standards - the fact that it has worked in non-frames pages in earlier browsers and with earlier DTD's should not be basis for determining the attribute can still be used with current standards. Non-frame documents using a current doctype and containing a target= attribute on a tags will cause browsers to revert to quirks mode or, "pretend to be an older browser that let bad code pass muster". There are no guarantees that future browsers will allow this fallback to something else provision.

http://www.w3.org/...01/struct/links.html

Last edited by:

Karen: Oct 26, 2003, 6:56 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Karen] Minor modifications needed In reply to
Quote:
The current Standards for HTML 4.01 as published by the W3C does not include target="_blank" or any other form of targetting for any link that is not inside a frameset. Target= is part of frameset standards - the fact that it has worked in non-frames pages in earlier browsers and with earlier DTD's should not be basis for determining the attribute can still be used with current standards.
When you click a link with target in it, browser opens a new window and frame, and a the target name is assigned to the frame, except if the target name is a reserved name (e.g. _blank, etc.).

But let's see what the standard says:
http://www.w3.org/...frames.html#h-16.3.2
Quote:
16.3.2 Target semantics
...
4. If any target attribute refers to an unknown frame F, the user agent should create a new window and frame, assign the name F to the frame, and load the resource designated by the element in the new frame.

Furthermore:
http://www.w3.org/...ml#type-frame-target
Quote:
6.16 Frame target names
...
The following target names are reserved and have special meanings:
_blank
The user agent should load the designated document in a new, unnamed window.
_self
The user agent should load the document in the same frame as the element that refers to this target.
_parent
The user agent should load the document into the immediate FRAMESET parent of the current frame. This value is equivalent to _self if the current frame has no parent.
_top
The user agent should load the document into the full, original window (thus canceling all other frames). This value is equivalent to _self if the current frame has no parent.

http://www.w3.org/...mes.html#adef-target
Quote:
16.3 Specifying target frame information
...
By assigning a name to a frame via the name attribute, authors can refer to it as the "target" of links defined by other elements. The target attribute may be set for elements that create links (A, LINK), image maps (AREA), and forms (FORM).

Please consult the section on target frame names for information about recognized frame names.

Quote:
Non-frame documents using a current doctype and containing a target= attribute on a tags will cause browsers to revert to quirks mode
Yes, this is true, as shown on the following page.

http://www.w3.org/...ndex/attributes.html
Quote:
Name Related Elements Type Default Depr. DTD Comment
...
target A, AREA, BASE, FORM, LINK %FrameTarget; #IMPLIED L render in this frame
...
Legend: Deprecated, Loose DTD, Frameset DTD
Altough HTML 4.01 Strict DTD doesn't allow target="_blank" in link, but you can still use HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD.

Quote:
There are no guarantees that future browsers will allow this fallback to something else provision.
Nothing is guaranteed :-)
There is no guarantee, that future browsers in 2050 will use HTML at all :-)

But, trust me, this feature will be not removed from browsers for a long time :)
It is a traditional feature, and will be always supported in quirks mode.

Best regards,
Webmaster33


Paid Support
from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...
Quote Reply
Re: [webmaster33] Minor modifications needed In reply to
Earlier you stated:

"Furthermore if a browser is not compatible with _blank usage, then it's not compatible with standards."

Now, you've cited several W3C items dealing with target attributes, as used within frames, and state:

"But, trust me, this feature will be not removed from browsers for a long time :)
It is a traditional feature, and will be always supported in quirks mode. "

Thanks for confirming my earlier statements.
QUIRKS MODE (aka not compatible with current W3C standards).
Quote Reply
Re: [Karen] Minor modifications needed In reply to
I still keep what I said:
Quote:
Furthermore if a browser is not compatible with _blank usage, then it's not compatible with standards.

_blank usage it's still in the standards as I quoted. It is not in the HTML 4.01 Strict DTD, but it's available in HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD.

Best regards,
Webmaster33


Paid Support
from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...
Quote Reply
Re: [webmaster33] Minor modifications needed In reply to
In Reply To:
I still keep what I said:
Quote:
Furthermore if a browser is not compatible with _blank usage, then it's not compatible with standards.

_blank usage it's still in the standards as I quoted. It is not in the HTML 4.01 Strict DTD, but it's available in HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD.


If you opt to use deprecated attributes on your pages, that's fine. It is incorrect however to claim usage of that attribute is compatible with new browsers. That tag attribute does in fact cause new browsers to go into Quirks Mode or, behave like an earlier non-compliant browser.

It's rather ironic that this thread has chastized the end users:

Quote:
if someone is using a browser thats not compatible with the new, or even older standards of html, they need to upgrade, point blank.

theres no reason to continue to design based on "older AOL browsers"


When in fact it is web developers that aren't able to let go of old techniques and are causing new browsers to revert back to earlier, non-compliant versions.
Quote Reply
Re: [Karen] Minor modifications needed In reply to
Personally I never wanted to make my website to match the standards. Simply doesn't worth the effort.
Therefore my goal is to make my website mostly crossbrowser compatible, so 90-95% of users could use the most possible features of my website.

Quote:
if someone is using a browser thats not compatible with the new, or even older standards of html, they need to upgrade
I don't aggree such opinions... Developers should never force users to make software upgrade.

But if most of the users (85-95%) use the new version of the software, I think it's the developer's choice to support or to not support the rest 5-15% of users (but note: in case of browsers, supporting old browsers may strongly affect the website design & features).
Currently on the internet, there are not too much websites which make their website so much crossbrowser compatible, to support even the oldest browsers... The goal to support 100% of the browsers, is very difficult (or almost impossible), makes you to do compromises in website design & featues, and compatibility requires a lot additional work.

Karen: if you want to continue such discussion, open a new thread in the Internet Technologies forum.
This topic is in Custom Modification Jobs forum, so our further discussion is offtopic here.

Best regards,
Webmaster33


Paid Support
from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...
Quote Reply
Re: [webmaster33] Minor modifications needed In reply to
I'd be happy to post in the IT forum ... just can't walk away and let inaccurate statements stand as fact in this one.

The quote you've cited wasn't mine. It was made by another poster and I cited that quote to demonstrate the inaccuracies of the discussion here.

You're putting forth a "move forward" to the new browsers dialogue while engaging in a "jump the browser back a notch" technique. It's rather confusing ...

Either way, if the Moderator for this forum would like to move the "technology" part of this thread down to the IT forum, I'd be happy to continue the discussion with you there.
Quote Reply
Re: [Karen] Minor modifications needed In reply to
Make a note & a link in this thread, if new thread is available (so I get notified).
I'm busy nowadays, and I don't browse the GT forum regularly.

Best regards,
Webmaster33


Paid Support
from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...
Quote Reply
Re: [webmaster33] Minor modifications needed In reply to
I've moved this thread, as it has got a bit off topic ;)

Cheers

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk
Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!