Comments on: SimpleQuiz › Part XVI: Launching Windows

By: Jakob

Jakob — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:57:25 +0000

I’ll go with the standard;
not using target at all.
There is really no need for it…

By: Thierry Koblentz

Thierry Koblentz — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:54:49 +0000

I go with A, using a solution that does not require any hook in the markup: Elégantes Popup Windows (shameless plug) My 2 cents: - There was a comment made about using "_blank" and "new". IMHO, another difference to take into consideration is that "_blank" is not blocked by popup blockers. - AFAIK, extending the DTD to use the target module creates an issue with the CSS validator (Jigsaw).

By: chris jopson

chris jopson — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:25:48 +0000

My immediate choice would be A, for the whole HTML=data, CSS=style, JAVASCRIPT=functionality idea.
However, am I doing something wrong, or do methods like these inevitably lead to the “information bar” dropping down in IE with service pack2?

By: Paul Odeon

Paul Odeon — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:41:38 +0000

I would choose solution A. Any website that wants to popup a window is unlikely to be seen on a device that cannot support javascript. But without going into this further I am going to offer my solution which is based on Kevin Yank’s Solution but has been altered so that it does not rely on adding the target=”_blank” attribute which I know some people, myself included find questionable.
The basic principle is to loop through all the anchors adding an onClick event handler to those with a rel=”external”
Here is the function which does that:
function externaliseLinks() { if (document.getElementsByTagName) { var anchors = document.getElementsByTagName("a"); for (var i=0; i Then simply call externaliseLinks(); in your body onload

By: Stefan van der Horst

Stefan van der Horst — Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:16:50 +0000

Since I want to follow accessibility directives I certainly would use type A solutions.
However, CPU usage should be kept to a minimal. Therefore I implement hyperlinks using the following method:
in javascript:
function setURLTarget(link, sTarget)
{
link.target = sTarget;
return true;
}
next the hyperlink must look like this:
http://www.class-act.nl” onclick=”setURLTarget(this,’_blank’);">the website
This implementation covers xhtml strict, accessibility rules and non-javascript browsers.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:50:29 +0000

I’ll go with the browsers allow users to open links in new windows so why on earth are we forcing users to get another window on there desktop.

By: Chris Hunt

Chris Hunt — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:26:42 +0000

I think opening in a new window is used way too often, but it’s occasionally necessary. When I do it, I generally go for C – it only happens rarely, and I tend to use Transitional anyway.
If I had the time, I’d go for A, using an onload script that sniffs out particular classes and adds in a target attribute for the new window. Why use a class instead of a rel? Because I might want to add some visual styling to those special links that will open in a new window, and CSS can’t (currently) pick out rels. Why use a class instead of an id (like the ALA article)? Because when I markup a link as requiring a new window, I don’t want to have to edit a seperate js file to add that id to the list. I just want to add class=”help”, or whatever, to the a tag.
In time, I could get rid of the onLoad script and use the target-new property in my stylesheet. I don’t have any dogmatic view on what should be CSS and what should be js, I just understand CSS better.
Incidentally, KAL, I’m intrigued that Firefox allows you to suppress new windows unless JS is used to open them. Does this limitation only apply where JS onclick methods are used, or is it also true where you use JS to add target attributes via the DOM?

By: Tim Hill

Tim Hill — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:53:42 +0000

Just a note about comment #1. I think the method was from an article at Sitepoint, by Kevin Yank.
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/standards-compliant-world
On the third page he makes a great point.
“if the target attribute of the a tag is being phased out, does it really make a difference whether we’re setting it with JavaScript instead of HTML? Sure, the page will validate against the HTML 4.0 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict Document Type Definitions, but aren’t we technically cheating? … The answer is no. The Document Object Model (DOM), which governs the document objects and attributes that are available to JavaScript code, is a totally separate standard from (X)HTML. Also consider that the DOM 2.0 standard that was published in January 2003 (well after XHTML 1.0, let alone HTML 4.0) still includes this attribute. It seems clear that while this attribute is slated to be phased out of (X)HTML, it will be available to JavaScript through the DOM for the foreseeable future.”

By: Dante

Dante — Fri, 04 Jun 2004 02:18:12 +0000

Needless to say, LOL.
Fazal reminds me of myself 5 months ago (hellbent on anti-standards, now I love them). IMHO, W3C should start paying more attention to the needs of developers.
Besides, if XHTML 2.0 becomes so horrid we still have good ol’ XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and if worst comes to worst, HTML 4.
The point of this quiz is not whether you should open new windows or not, it’s assuming that we should and asking how we would. So pretend you had to open a new window – how would you do it? Now try and answer the question.

By: Fazal Majid

Fazal Majid — Thu, 03 Jun 2004 08:15:53 +0000

C. If XHTML 1.0 Strict does not support target, it is broken, and not worth bothering with. I tend to agree with Mark Pilgrim, XHTML Strict (and thus 2.0, hello, no img tags?) are a case study of standards groups (motto: "if we piss on it, it improves the taste") indulging in intellectual onanism.