HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

[Guy Macon]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target




Daniel Jung wrote:

>
>Helmut Richter wrote:
>

>What is the correct way of suggesting a behaviour the user is free to
>override?

>
>CSS.
>
>There should be a target in classes, as it is - like styling - a (an
>overridable) suggestion on how/where to put the content on question... I
>mean, you can position a div for a content (fixed/relative/floated) - so
>why not in a completely different window? E.g.,
>
>.singleEntryLi nk {
color: black;
background-color: white;
target: singleWindow;
>}
>
><a href="?show=id1 234" class="singleEn tryLink">show me 1234</a>

That would be a Bad Thing.

The basic philosophy behind HTML 4.01 Strict separates content,
styling, and browser behaviour.

Content is determined by HTML and is, of course, not optional.

Styling is determined by CSS and is optional.

Browser behavior is determined by ECMAScript(Java Script)
and is optional.

Opening a link in a new window is a deviation from normal
browser behaviour and thus belongs in JavaScript, not in CSS.

Those of us who agree with the basic philosophy behind HTML
4.01 do not want our content, styling and user behavior to
be mixed together, and in particular we do not want changes
to browser behavior to be triggered by stylesheets. If that
was allowed, then the many, many users who don't mind web
authors telling them how to style webpages but strongly
object to web authors controlling how their browsers behave
would no longer be able to get what they want by enabling CSS
and disabling JavaScript.





--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Dr J R Stockton]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

In comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html message <slrngep1ih.43j .usenet@de
branded.larseig hner.com>, Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:16:02, Lars Eighner
<usenet@larseig hner.composted:

>In our last episode, <48ec8174$0$191 $e4fe514c@news. xs4all.nl>, the lovely
>and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
>

>Thank you for your clear response.
>So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
>attribute.

>
>'Target" is only useful to crooks who want to keep people trapped on their
>sites.

How, then, do you suggest that I replace Target in <URL:http://www.merly
n.demon.co.uk/dm034-24.htm(most of my pages use Target like that, but
that's about the shortest such page)? That usage does nothing to trap
people; so, for your quoted statement to be true, you must at least be
able to offer a satisfactory (compact) alternative.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk DOS 3.3 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/- FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/batfiles.htm- also batprogs.htm.

[Guy Macon]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target




Lars Eighner wrote:

>'Target" is only useful to crooks who want to keep people
>trapped on their sites.

That's not true. TARGET = "_top" is useful for breaking
out of a frame that some other website has put your page into.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Moon]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

CJM schrieb:

You have 3 choices:

Actually you forgot the fourth that should have been listed 1st:

- check the group for previous postings on that subject.

My posting of 6 days ago regarding this topic has already been answered.

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Stanimir Stamenkov schreef:

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:47:43 +0200, /Erwin Moller/:
>

>Please consider the following real life situation:
>1) A certain page is produced by PHP as a result from some huge
>databasequer y that is quite demanding for the server.
>>
>2) The user must select many tuples for editting.
>>
>This is the moment I REALLY want a new window. The clicked tuple will
>open in it, in a form, ready for editting and submitting back to the
>server.
>The server now only has to query one tuple, and I put it in a form.
>Easy enough for the user, and easy for the server too.
>>
>If I do NOT have the luxery of a new window, I must reload the whole
>page, and open the tuple in an edit-form.

>

Hi,

I didn't actually get how you plan to update the main window with
querying just a single tuple after the user submits a form from a new
window?

I don't. :-)
I was discussing a solution without JavaScript (so no Ajax).
In the situation I described this mainwindow would be used to click on
records that needs editting, and would itself not be updated untill the
user requests this explicitely.

My example was just just that: an example that showed valid, handy use
of the target attribute, nothing more.
Since quite a few people in here seem to think target can only be used
to 'trap visitors', I thought I better show them just some random
example of an useful implementation using target.

If you would resort to AJAX you might better implement

in-document editing instead of opening new windows. If you're going to
use JavaScript you may better try opening a new window from the script
for which you don't need a link with a 'target'.

I know.

Regards,
Erwin



--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Blinky the Shark schreef:

Erwin Moller wrote:
>

>It feels to me like: "You cannot use a red border around an
>image because some visitors might consider it annoying.".

>
So you can't differentiate between functionality and cosmetics.
>

Oh yes, I can just fine. WHy do you think I started using STRICT doctype
in the first place?
Apperantly you cannot differentiate between an analogy and a statement.
Mine was an analogy.
You cannot seriously think I was seriously proposing that red border
thing, I hope.

I said I stronly feel that target is a very useful attribute that
clearly serves a purpose.
Then it is argued here that target can be misused, and so it is good it
is removed.
I say that it's usefullness a matter of taste, so it should be included
into STRICT doctype, and leave it to the wbemaster.
And then I gave an example with redbordered images to ridicule the idea
that w3c didn't put it into STRICT doctype.

Erwin Moller

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Moon schreef:

CJM schrieb:
>

>You have 3 choices:

>
Actually you forgot the fourth that should have been listed 1st:
>
- check the group for previous postings on that subject.
>
My posting of 6 days ago regarding this topic has already been answered.

Hi Moon,

I appologize for that: It can be annoying to see the same questions pop
up all the time, I know.
I did some searching on the internet first (also newsgroups) and found a
lot of different opinions on the subject.
And well, I was too lame to search this newsgroup to six days back to
see if it the subject was addressed, since I already read so much
postings on the subject and depending on what posting you read you will
find apposing opinions.
That is why I asked here in hope to find some more insights on the
subject, which I did find. Sorry for the noise, but it has been useful
for me.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Blinky the Shark]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Erwin Moller wrote:

>
Blinky the Shark schreef:

>Erwin Moller wrote:
>>

>>It feels to me like: "You cannot use a red border around an
>>image because some visitors might consider it annoying.".

>>
>So you can't differentiate between functionality and cosmetics.
>>

>
Oh yes, I can just fine. WHy do you think I started using STRICT doctype
in the first place?
Apperantly you cannot differentiate between an analogy and a statement.
Mine was an analogy.

Analogies are best made between similar things. Else, their point is lost.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

[Guy Macon]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target




Erwin Moller wrote:

>I said I strongly feel that target is a very useful attribute that
>clearly serves a purpose. I say that it's usefulness a matter of >

taste, so it should be included into STRICT doctype, and leave it

>to the webmaster.

As I explained to you twice already, it isn't a question of being
useful. It is a matter of the basic design philosophy behind HTML
4.01, which I shall explain (for the third time) below. Please stop
pretending that you never saw it and that this is about whether
target is useful or can be misused. I am beginning to suspect
that you are the kind of person who addresses weak arguments against
your position while ignoring strong ones.

>Then it is argued here that target can be misused, and so it is
>good it is removed.

As I explained to you twice already, that functionality was nor
REmoved. It was MOVED. See below.

For the *THIRD* time:

Target was removed, along with everything else that has anything
to do to do with frames or windows, because HTML 4.01 Strict
attempts to keep to the intended purpose of HTML, which is marking
up document content, not modifying the behavior of the user
interface.

The basic philosophy behind HTML 4.01 Strict separates content,
styling, and browser behaviour.
..
Content is determined by HTML markup and is not optional. The
web designer controls the content 100%. The user get no say.

Styling is determined by CSS and is optional. While it is
expected that many users will accept the web designer's
styling decisions, they are free to turn off CSS or to replace
some or all of the website's CSS with their own stylesheet.

Browser behavior is determined by ECMAScript (Also known as
JavaScript) and is optional. It is expected that many users
will choose to make their own decisions about browser behavior.

I repeat, the basic philosophy behind HTML 4.01 Strict separates
content, styling, and browser behaviour.

Opening a link in a new window is a deviation from normal
browser behaviour and thus belongs in JavaScript, not in
HTML or CSS.

If those who, like you, disagree with the basic philosophy
behind HTML 4.01 were allowed to control browser behavior
in HTML, that would make the control non-optional. Is that
not the stated reason you want target to be in HTML and not
JavaScript -- because many users chose to make their own
decisions about browser behavior rather than letting your
JavaScript make the decision for them?

Did I mention that the basic philosophy behind HTML 4.01
Strict separates content, styling, and browser behaviour?

>Why do you think I started using STRICT doctype in the first place?

I have no idea. I asked you directly why you re using a strict
doctype and you ignored the question.

When you wrote

"What I want is this: Create webpages that validate in STRICT."

I asked the following question, which you refused to answer.
(and yet you somehow found time to respond to flaming...)

*WHY* are you using HTML 4.01 Strict?

You aren't using HTML 4.01 Strict because you agree with the basic
philosophy behind that doctype; you clearly do not.

You aren't using HTML 4.01 Strict because there is no doctype
that allows target; HTML 4.01 Transitional allows target.

You aren't using HTML 4.01 Strict because your users will see
any difference; they won't.

You aren't using HTML 4.01 Strict because it makes your pages
easier to create or maintain; it doesn't.

So why *are* you insisting on strict? What is your motive?
What are the advantages to you? What will it do for you?
What will it do for your users? There must be SOME sort of
reason that you can verbalize!

Oh, and by the way, the chances of the W3C abandoning the basic
philosophy behind HTML 4.01 Strict simply because you refuse to
use the doctype that they created for folks like you are about
as good as the chances of Bob Barr beating Barack Obama and John
McCain. I wish he would beat them, but it isn't going to happen.





--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.co m/writes:

Target was removed,

Eh? I thought it had just been added in HTML 4.

along with everything else that has anything
to do to do with frames or windows, because HTML 4.01 Strict
attempts to keep to the intended purpose of HTML,

The intended purpose of HTML was to put procedural markup in angle
brackets. Everything else (RFC 1866 upwards) was an afterthought and has
never been implemented in any user agent I’ve seen.

Browser behavior is determined by ECMAScript (Also known as
JavaScript) and is optional.

Bullshit (JavaScript is an ECMAScript implementation, so is JScript, and
there is very little browser specific stuff in ECMAScript; the word
‘browser’ appears 4 times on page 14, and that’s about it).

--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011

[Guy Macon]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target




Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.co m/writes:
>

>Browser behavior is determined by ECMAScript (Also known as
>JavaScript) and is optional.

>
>Bullshit (JavaScript is an ECMAScript implementation, so is JScript,
>and there is very little browser specific stuff in ECMAScript;

I am well aware of the difference between ECMAScript and JavaScript.
I didn't think that the OP needed a detailed explanation of the
differencein the middle of a post on another topic, so I used a bit
of verbal shorthand. I considerd simply telling him that browser
behavior is determined by JavaScript, but that would have been
inaccurate in another way.

>the word "browser" appears 4 times on page 14, and that's about it).

I apologize for being unclear. The phrase "Browser behavior is
determined by ECMAScript" was not meant to imply that determining
browser behavior us the sole or even main use of ECMAScript.
It was meant to imply that determining browser behavior is not a
function of HTML or CSS.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Guy Macon schreef:

Erwin Moller wrote:
>

>I said I strongly feel that target is a very useful attribute that
>clearly serves a purpose. I say that it's usefulness a matter of >

taste, so it should be included into STRICT doctype, and leave it

>to the webmaster.

>
As I explained to you twice already, it isn't a question of being
useful. It is a matter of the basic design philosophy behind HTML
4.01, which I shall explain (for the third time) below. Please stop
pretending that you never saw it and that this is about whether
target is useful or can be misused. I am beginning to suspect
that you are the kind of person who addresses weak arguments against
your position while ignoring strong ones.

<snip>

Hi Guy,

I saw your response earlier and it was usefull.
It was actually the best reason I found/heard why target is NOT included
into STRICT doctype.
I can even say I think it IS a good reason.
So sorry I didn't respond earlier in the original treads, I had to keep
up with so much bull in the other threads that I didn't respond to your
useful posting (But I mentioned you elsewhere. ;-) )
My bad.

In this case: I am NOT responding to your posting, which was good, but
to Blinky's somewhat insulting posting (I cannot differentate between
cosmetics and functionality.) .
I see too many of such responses in here to keep a cheerfull attitude.

So don't explain it for a fourth time. ;-)
Your first one was just OK. I should simply have responded earlier. My
bad, sorry for the confusion and thanks for your response(s).

To business:

*WHY* are you using HTML 4.01 Strict?
>
You aren't using HTML 4.01 Strict because you agree with the basic
philosophy behind that doctype; you clearly do not.

Indeed. I found 1 thing in STRICT I don't agree with for reasons I
already explained (no JavaScript, and clients who have mental problems
with remembering how to open a new window).

Should I stop using STRICT then? I am not sure.

>
You aren't using HTML 4.01 Strict because there is no doctype
that allows target; HTML 4.01 Transitional allows target.
>
You aren't using HTML 4.01 Strict because your users will see
any difference; they won't.
>
You aren't using HTML 4.01 Strict because it makes your pages
easier to create or maintain; it doesn't.
>
So why *are* you insisting on strict? What is your motive?
What are the advantages to you? What will it do for you?
What will it do for your users? There must be SOME sort of
reason that you can verbalize!

No need to shout. ;-)

I have this impression that using STRICT doctype leads to better
formatted pages: I totally seperate my content from my presentation (css).
Yes, I can do that too in TRANSITIONAL of course, but I had the
impression STRICT kept me more on my toes to do it right.
Besides that, the fact that it is named TRANSITIONAL doesn't really give
me a nice warm feeling it will be around for a long time. But I could be
wrong.

About 'browser behaviour': This is a little vague to me.
What do you (or W3C) mean excactly by 'browser behaviour'?
Is that only about new windows and resizing windows, having a toolbar,
url, etc in the browser, or does it include more?

I mean: there is a thin line between what you call 'presentation' and
'browser behaviour'.
When I hover above a link, and it changes its presentation (color eg):
That used to be normal browser behaviour, but can also be labeled
presentation (which it is too since you can control it from css).
What about an abilitycheck in JavaScript, eg: does this browser have the
right version of Java installed?

For me that is thin line between 'presentation' and 'browser behaviour'.
Maybe it is not thin line, but then at least unclear to me.
If you could elaborate a little on that I would be happy.

>
Oh, and by the way, the chances of the W3C abandoning the basic
philosophy behind HTML 4.01 Strict simply because you refuse to
use the doctype that they created for folks like you are about
as good as the chances of Bob Barr beating Barack Obama and John
McCain. I wish he would beat them, but it isn't going to happen.
>

Let's just hope Republicans don't win. ;-)


Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Adrienne Boswell schreef:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwriting
in news:48eccfd6$0 $200$e4fe514c@n ews.xs4all.nl:
>

>I am curious how you split your page.
>I might very well adopt that too since I want to keep using the STRICT
>doctype.
>>

>
<!-- insert query -->
<!-- validate and process form -->
<style type="text/css">
/* style the left and right divs to suit */
</style>
</head>
<body>
<!-- any header or other markup -->
<div id="left">
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Column</th><th>Column</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<!-- insert for loop here -->
<tr>
<td>data</td><td>data</td>
</tr>
<!-- end loop -->
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div id="right">
<form method="post" action="thispag e">
<fieldset><lege nd>Whatever</legend>
....
</fieldset>
</form>
</div>
<!-- footer or other markup -->
>

Hi,

And how excactly does that load the right record/tuple into the form
without a full pagereload or JavaScript/AJAX?

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Adrienne Boswell]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwriting
in news:48f32adb$0 $201$e4fe514c@n ews.xs4all.nl:

Adrienne Boswell schreef:

>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
><Since_humans_ read_this_I_am_ spammed_too_muc h@spamyourself. com>

writing

>in news:48eccfd6$0 $200$e4fe514c@n ews.xs4all.nl:
>>

>>I am curious how you split your page.
>>I might very well adopt that too since I want to keep using the

STRICT

>>doctype.
>>>

>>
><!-- insert query -->
><!-- validate and process form -->
><style type="text/css">
>/* style the left and right divs to suit */
></style>
></head>
><body>
><!-- any header or other markup -->
><div id="left">
><table>
><thead>
><tr>
><th>Column</th><th>Column</th>
></tr>
></thead>
><tbody>
><!-- insert for loop here -->
><tr>
><td>data</td><td>data</td>
></tr>
><!-- end loop -->
></tbody>
></table>
></div>
><div id="right">
><form method="post" action="thispag e">
><fieldset><leg end>Whatever</legend>
>....
></fieldset>
></form>
></div>
><!-- footer or other markup -->
>>

>
Hi,
>
And how excactly does that load the right record/tuple into the form
without a full pagereload or JavaScript/AJAX?
>
Regards,
Erwin Moller
>

All I am showing here really, is the HTML markup. Server side and
client side scripting is up to you.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services

http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info

Please respond to the group so others can share

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Adrienne Boswell schreef:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwriting
in news:48f32adb$0 $201$e4fe514c@n ews.xs4all.nl:
>

>Adrienne Boswell schreef:

>>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
>><Since_humans _read_this_I_am _spammed_too_mu ch@spamyourself .com>

writing

>>in news:48eccfd6$0 $200$e4fe514c@n ews.xs4all.nl:
>>>
>>>I am curious how you split your page.
>>>I might very well adopt that too since I want to keep using the

STRICT

>>>doctype.
>>>>
>><!-- insert query -->
>><!-- validate and process form -->
>><style type="text/css">
>>/* style the left and right divs to suit */
>></style>
>></head>
>><body>
>><!-- any header or other markup -->
>><div id="left">
>><table>
>><thead>
>><tr>
>><th>Column</th><th>Column</th>
>></tr>
>></thead>
>><tbody>
>><!-- insert for loop here -->
>><tr>
>><td>data</td><td>data</td>
>></tr>
>><!-- end loop -->
>></tbody>
>></table>
>></div>
>><div id="right">
>><form method="post" action="thispag e">
>><fieldset><le gend>Whatever</legend>
>>....
>></fieldset>
>></form>
>></div>
>><!-- footer or other markup -->
>>>

>Hi,
>>
>And how excactly does that load the right record/tuple into the form
>without a full pagereload or JavaScript/AJAX?
>>
>Regards,
>Erwin Moller
>>

>
All I am showing here really, is the HTML markup. Server side and
client side scripting is up to you.
>

Hi,

I don't think you understand the problem I was describing.
I was describing something like this:
1) Imagine a page with 1000 rows, eg some orders.
2) You want to user to click on one, so it opens for editting and shows
more details.

I think you suggest a trip to the server to handle the click, so the
server returns the same page with only the clicked row opened in a form.
Well, that is easy enough and I have been doing that for ages, but the
problem is this: It is slow and leads to high serverload.

However, if you could click on a record, and only THAT record opens (via
the server) in a new window, you don't have this high serverload and
slow responsetime.

That is excactly why I gave this example, and why I miss target.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--