On the third page kevin yank talks about it a bit more [quote from article] "...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." [end quote] Tim Hill Computer Associates Graphic Artist tel:+612 9937 0792 fax: +612 9937 0546 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Ben Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 27 February 2004 2:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Styleswitching Is it me or does that article simply point out how to generate non-standards-compliant code with javascript in order to fool the validator? Though it's not always possible, I prefer adhere to the spirit of the standard - allowing the user to control where pages open. B Neerav wrote: > > http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1041 will solve the target=_blank > error > > setting > > img { > border: 0; > } > > in your CSS will fix the next, and that makes it validate 100% :-) > > Neerav > www.bhatt.id.au > > Michael Kear wrote: > >> Whoohoooo! I just launched my first near-compliant site. It's the >> first of >> 5 I'm working on at the moment, all built from scratch to XHTML1.0 >> Strict. >> This one has a couple of xhtml validation errors that I'm not sure >> whether >> to bother with or not - it's a question of how much can I afford to >> tinker >> with it given the penury I'm forced to live under. >> >> Anyway, it's a subject that has very little sex-appeal, for a client >> that >> wants a site that looks staid and steady because of who his own >> clients are. >> But the site is compliant apart from the graphics and the target in the >> footer. It loads in a fraction of the time it took the old one to load. >> >> Have a look if you like. I think I've kind of made a silk purse out >> of a >> sow's ear with this one. http://metacoustics.com.au I'm eager to >> hear >> what y'all think of it. >> >> >> Cheers >> Mike Kear >> Windsor, NSW, Australia >> AFP Webworks >> http://afpwebworks.com > > ***************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > ***************************************************** > ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ ***************************************************** ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
