On 4/28/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also made it non-conforming for window.open().
window.open() without a target argument implies _blank AFAICT, so this
seems O.K.
--
Michael
On Apr 27, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Won't this just lead authors (who care about conformance) to use
window.open(), with equally bad results that it's harder for the
UA to
control?
I also made it non-conforming for window.open().
On Apr 27, 2007, at 9:55 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The major reasons for popups that I can remember include:
* Links to external sites, so that users don't leave the previous
site.
- It's far better to inform the user that they're going to an
external
site and let them decide for them
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I've argued my socks off trying to convince authors that they should
leave opening new windows to users, but there are an awful lot of them
who for various reasons insists on doing just that.
It would be interesting to hear the needs
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> Won't this just lead authors (who care about conformance) to use
> window.open(), with equally bad results that it's harder for the UA to
> control?
I also made it non-conforming for window.open().
> This move seems to be taking the opposite o
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Spartanicus wrote:
As a user I detest new windows opening without having chosen to do
that myself. But I'd question the wisdom of making _blank non
conforming.
1) At least _blank allows me to filter it out before sending it to
my browser.
Filtering o
On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Why is _blank still considered a conforming value? On IRC, Hixie
mentioned that there are some legitimate use cases, but didn't
list any.
I've argued against popups many times before and heard many ar
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> Why is _blank still considered a conforming value? On IRC, Hixie
> mentioned that there are some legitimate use cases, but didn't list any.
> I've argued against popups many times before and heard many arguments
> for them, but I'm yet to hear of a
Hi,
Thanks for your input.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Henrik Gulbrandsen wrote:
>
> 1. A website includes an iframe that holds a third-party widget loaded
>as HTML from another domain. All communication between this widget
>and the main page takes place entirely via client-side JavaScript
>
How about about adding a toggle() operation to classList? Adds the
token if not present, removes it if present. This would be useful for
script code that dynamically manipulates classes to cause style changes.
Regards,
Macie
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, RyanJ wrote:
>
> Requesting information about the new "web-apps" standards point of view
> about giving a page author the ability to add explicit new lines into a
> title attribute to be phrased by a browser. Via the title tooltip test
> suite made by David Hammond
> (http
2007/4/27, Jon Barnett:
Can I ask how that would work with a dialog? Would it be like this?
myframeddocument.designMode = "on";
mytoolbar.hyperlinkButton.onclick = function() {
myframeddocument.body.irrelevant = true;
var dialog = window.open("hyperlinkDialog.html");
// a dialog where the
On 4/26/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Karl Pongratz wrote:
>
> I had a short look at the webforms and web applications specification at
> whatwg.org, I didn't find anything about modal and modeless windows. If
> there is anything to improve for html, xhtml, xfor
On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Martin Atkins wrote:
Christian Schmidt wrote:
In practice, the result effect is often achieved by wrapping your
include file in a document.write() and including this using
script a
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:17:12 +0200, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We do no longer support this in mozilla (if we ever did). A reason we
now explicitly forbid this is we don't want it to ever be possible to
create elements with 'illegal' names. Same thing goes
Kornel Lesinski wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:19:49 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is an idea I have had floating around in my head for a while and
a recent couple of threads reminded me I really need to post it here.
Basic idea:
The idea is basically an element like but
Martin Atkins wrote:
Christian Schmidt wrote:
In practice, the result effect is often achieved by wrapping your
include file in a document.write() and including this using script a
Christian Schmidt wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
The idea is basically an element like but that renders the
linked page, instead of inside a square area, in flow with the main
page.
This is actually useful not only in Ajax-like applications like the ones
suggested in your example but also in more
Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
Here's one use case
In the online advertising business, ads are usually put in s
for security reasons...
So... if you didn't use a "_blank" for the target, the landing page
for the ad would open up in the tiny (instead of a new
window).
That's a use case fo
Hello,
Here's one use case
In the online advertising business, ads are usually put in s
for security reasons. (So the ad can't tell what page it's on... get
user cookies from that domain... etc.)
So... if you didn't use a "_blank" for the target, the landing page
for the ad would open up i
20 matches
Mail list logo
