Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target




Erwin Moller wrote:

Guy Macon schreef:

All the reasons you list are reasons for having a link open in a
new window. None of them are reasons for having a link open a
new window *in HTML* instead of in JavaScript.

Then you didn't read through the whole thread, which is understandable,

I believe that I have read and understood the entire thread. I do not
believe that you have given a valid reason for reasons for wanting to
have a link open a new window in HTML instead of in JavaScript.

since I did give a valid reason to do it in HTML.
I need that on some projects where my userbase consider opening a new
window themselfs highly complex and I am not allowed to demand
JavaScript (which would of course solve the whole mess I am complaining
about).

I know this is not a great reason, but I think it is reason
enough to include target in STRICT.

Saying "I am not allowed to demand JavaScript" does not change the
basic fact that there appears to be no valid reason for wanting to
open the new window using HTML instead of in JavaScript. It simply
changes "I want this but cannot explain why" to "I am following the
orders of someone who wants this but cannot explain why."

But hey, YOU cannot help me with that of course. The STRICT doctype is
there, it doesn't include target=, end of discussion.
It is just that I think this was a bad decision.

There is only one difference between having the "open in a new window"
functionality in HTML instead of JavaScript. Putting it in HTML shoves
it down your users throats whether they like it or not. Putting it
in JavaScript allows your users to make their own choices. Neither you
or those who are ordering you to not require JavaScript have provided
any other reason.

The only reason
that I can think of for you insisting that the open-in-new-window
functionality must be in HTML is that you want to force it upon
the user rather than having it be optional. If you have a better
reason, I would be most interested in hearing it.

I hope my above reason is enough.

It isn't. Look carefully at what you wrote. You failed to give any
actual reason. An actual reason would include some good thing that
would result from choosing one option or some bad thing that would
result from choosing the other option. The reasons you gave were:

[1]
"I need that on some projects where my userbase consider
opening a new window themselves highly complex"

Not a valid reason for wanting it in HTML instead of JavaScript.
Your userbase doesn't have to open the new window themselves if
you do it in JavaScript.

[2]
"and I am not allowed to demand JavaScript"

Not a valid reason for wanting it in HTML instead of JavaScript
unless you provide a valid reason why you are not allowed to
demand JavaScript.

This, by the way, is why you get replies saying that you
want to force things on your users.

Yes, I noticed, I referred to it as a Pavlov response.

You can refer to it that way if you wish, but to me it looks
a lot more like a valid conclusion based on the arguments you
have posted. I have looked at every word you have posted, and
I can only come up with three possibilities.

[A] You (or possibly someone who is giving you orders) want to
open new windows in HTML instead of JavaScript for no reason
at all -- it is a purely emotional and non-rational desire.

[B] You (or possibly someone who is giving you orders) want to
open windows in HTML instead of JavaScript for some unknown
reason that you have not revealed in your posts.

[C] You (or possibly someone who is giving you orders) want to
open new windows in HTML instead of JavaScript because some
users turn off JavaScript and you don't want them to have a
choice as to whether to open new windows or to open the new
page in the existing window.

I cannot find any other reason in your posts.

The basic idea is this; turn off CSS and the document is readable.
It doesn't have to be pretty, but it has to all be there. Yes,
,noitcerid txet eht esrever ,elpmaxe rof ,ot SSC esu nac uoy
(AKA "you can use CSS to, for example, reverse the text direction,")
but you aren't supposed to do what I did above, use reversing on
English text. It is there for right-to-left languages such as
Hebrew. If it had no such legitimate purpose, it would have been
removed from CSS. This, by the way, is why you get replies saying
that the reason target was removed was because of the potential
for abuse. That's incorrect. It was moved (not removed) because
there is no legitimate use for it in HTML, leaving only the possibility
of misuse.

Likewise, the basic idea is that you can turn off JavaScript and
the document is not only readable, but styled according to the
CSS style*** associated with that document. As was explained
above for CSS, you can use JavaScript to change content and
styling, but you shouldn't. Content should be determined by
HTML. Styling should be determined by CSS, The behavior of the
user agent user interface should be determined by scripting
(typically JavaScript).

Yes, nice in theory, but I am afraid many many webpages don't follow
that philosophy. I too have often to work with designers that want
control to the last pixel. I don't like that, even advise against it,
but that doesn't always help. :-/

Again, they are allowed to do that. They are even allowed to call
the result "HTML 4.01 Strict" if it validates. If, however, they
feel that attaining the above goal requires HTML markup that does
not validate, they are disagreeing with the basic philosophy behind
HTML 4.01 Strict and thus should not advertise their pages as being
HTML 4.01 Strict in the doctype. Again, they are allowed to disagree
and the W3C has given them several doctypes that they can use for
their purposes.

The problem is often that a client saw a great looking new design for
their website, and want that exactly on the net. Then they throw the
design on my desk I am supposed to implement it exactly like that.
This often leads to sad rendering if you disable the CSS.

There is nothing wrong with sad rendering if you disable CSS.
The only requirement is that it be readable, not pretty.

There are two things that I advise every serious web author to do:

First, install the Lynx browser and test your pages on it. Second,
set up an aural browser (the kind that blind people use) and test
your site with the monitor turned off. Besides the fact that making
your website inaccessible to blind people is evil and possibly illegal
depending on where you live, doing this optimizes your site for your
most important visitor (who just happens to be blind, deaf, and to have
a severe cognitive disability) -- the Google search engine web crawler.







--
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>


.