That´s really understandable, but transitional is meant to be a 'transition' before all web sites turn into strict web standards. So it is also understandable for developers to start digging in how to translate our sites to those, let´s say, definitive, or totally usable, standards. Am I wrong?
Best regards; Eugenio. On 8/15/06, Tony Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's mad, is what it is. target_blank is allowed under transitional standards. if you adopt strict standards then adhere to them. forcing a new window on a mobile phone or the forthcoming UA that integrates with your optic nerve and projects the web on a virtual screen is not sensible. arguing about target_blank has been done, a decision reached and standards set. IIRC the original argument started when someone wanted to force a new window *and* have code valid to xhtml strict standards. I firmly believe that new windows should be the users choice and there are no business cases for new windows that can't be done a different way. I think they *should* be done differently if you want widest use of your business application on the web. However, if you're creating a desktop application for a closed usage on an intranet? well why not have multiple windows spawning? - that's what we expect windowed applications to do, but code to a transitional standard, that allows for it. I'm a pragmatic coder though and if the time and effort or commercial budget are an issue and the client can't be persuaded that new windows are a bad idea then I just change to a less strict standard and code to that. let's not argue for a change to the standards because we don't like them, just choose one that allows the behaviour you want and *understand* and *educate* clients on the why and wherefore... ;o)
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
