Focus on second window

**Lee** · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benno_B=F6s ?= said:[color=blue]
>
>If I use the following construct in the frame "main" for a link to an
>extern site:
>
><A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern" >
>
>the Browser is creating the window "extern", loading the page
>www.any.xy an setting the focus to "extern". But when I go return to
>"main" without closing "extern", a click to an other link (e.g.
>www.2nd_any.xy) on "main" does not setting the focus to "extern".
>
>For setting the focus to "extern" in the second case, I have used the
>following construct:
>
>
><A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern"
>onClick="setTi meout('extern=w indow.open(\'\' ,\'extern\');fr emd.focus();',5 00);">
>an example</A>[/color]

As written, that won't work because fremd is undefined.
I'll guess that you meant for it to be extern.focus()

However, the following is simpler and doesn't depend on how long it
takes for your windows to open:

<html>
<body>
<a href="http://www.google.com"
target="extern"
onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return false">an example</a>
<br>
<a href="http://www.yahoo.com"
target="extern"
onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return false">another
example</a>
<br>
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.o rg"
target="extern"
onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return false">and another
example</a>
</body>
</html>

DU · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Benno Bös wrote:
[color=blue]
> If I use the following construct in the frame "main" for a link to an
> extern site:
>
> <A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern" >
>
> the Browser is creating the window "extern", loading the page
> www.any.xy an setting the focus to "extern". But when I go return to
> "main" without closing "extern", a click to an other link (e.g.
> www.2nd_any.xy) on "main" does not setting the focus to "extern".[/color]

What you are pinpointing here is the weakness in the windowing
management of all operating systems. J. Nielsen and many others have
explained this phenomenon. You're pinpointing one of the biggest reason
why opening a new window implies usability burdens. This has been
heavily explained before.
[color=blue]
>
> For setting the focus to "extern" in the second case, I have used the
> following construct:
>
>
> <A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern"
> onClick="setTim eout('extern=wi ndow.open(\'\', \'extern\');fre md.focus();',50 0);">
> an example</A>
>
>
> This construct has worked very well for a few years, but since about
> one year, the sesult was the same as using
> <A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern" >
>
> In this year, I have changed:
> win 95 --> win 2000
> modem 56k --> DSL
> Netscape 4.5 --> Netscape 7.1
>
>
> Can anybody tell me a possibility setting the focus to "extern" in the
> second case?[/color]

Yes with javascript and if the user allows focus() method on existing
windows. Opera 7.x and Mozilla-based browsers have user pref settings
which can neutralize focus() calls. No without javascript.

One way to compensate that windowing flaw is to notify the user fair and
square about the opening (and/or re-using of secondary window) of new
window with the title attribute (1), with a customized cursor (2), with
a custom .gif at the right side of the link. Believe it or not, most
major corporation sites have an icon .gif for this: I posted these about
6 months ago in alt.html.

Is the changing of my configuration the reason, that the[color=blue]
> construct has failed?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
>
>[/color]

You probably have Edit/Preferences.../Advanced/Scripts & plugins/Allow
Scripts to:/Raise or lower windows

Explanations:

IIS 7.5 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Popup/PopupAndNetscape7.html#RaiseLowerSetting

Working example:

IIS 7.5 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/BrowserBugsSection/Opera7Bugs/Opera7Bugs.html

DU
--
(1)
"8. Use link titles to provide users with a preview of where each link
will take them, before they have clicked on it."
Ten Good Deeds in Web Design

10 Good Deeds in Web Design

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html

Ten design elements that would increase the usability of virtually all websites if only they were employed more widely.

"(...) if your link spawns a new window, or causes another windows to
'pop up' on your display, or move the focus of the system to a new FRAME
or Window, then the nice thing to do is to tell the user that something
like that will happen."
World Wide Web Consortium Accessibility Initiative regarding popups,

Examples: WAI Web Content Accessibility Curriculum - slide "10.1 - Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user."

http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/sam77-0.htm

(2)
there are bugzilla bugfiles on this: bug 90213, bug 169678. Also,

http://www.draig.de/LinkBar

uses customized cursors among which there is one for target="_blank" links.

DU · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Lee wrote:
[color=blue]
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benno_B=F6s ?= said:
>[color=green]
>>If I use the following construct in the frame "main" for a link to an
>>extern site:
>>
>><A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern" >
>>
>>the Browser is creating the window "extern", loading the page
>>www.any.xy an setting the focus to "extern". But when I go return to
>>"main" without closing "extern", a click to an other link (e.g.
>>www.2nd_any.xy) on "main" does not setting the focus to "extern".
>>
>>For setting the focus to "extern" in the second case, I have used the
>>following construct:
>>
>>
>><A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern"
>>onClick="setT imeout('extern= window.open(\'\ ',\'extern\');f remd.focus();', 500);">
>>an example</A>[/color]
>
>
> As written, that won't work because fremd is undefined.
> I'll guess that you meant for it to be extern.focus()
>
> However, the following is simpler and doesn't depend on how long it
> takes for your windows to open:
>
> <html>
> <body>
> <a href="http://www.google.com"
> target="extern"
> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return false">an example</a>[/color]

Your code will reload entirely all over again the google.com page when
that page already exists, when the code should only give that secondary
extern window the focus to bring it back on top. And when the window is
not created, the code calls the focus() method when it is not needed.
So, I wouldn't say your code is making optimal use of user's system
resources. Finally, your code just ignores the perspective of users
altogether: this is important to address all the time, furthermore if
the user has javascript support disabled and stats indicate that 5% to
10% of users have javascript support disabled.

I'll grant you that your code is better than code in many online
tutorials I've seen before.

DU
[color=blue]
> <br>
> <a href="http://www.yahoo.com"
> target="extern"
> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return false">another
> example</a>
> <br>
> <a href="http://www.gutenberg.o rg"
> target="extern"
> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return false">and another
> example</a>
> </body>
> </html>
>[/color]

**Lee** · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

DU said:[color=blue]
>
>Lee wrote:
>[color=green]
>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benno_B=F6s ?= said:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>If I use the following construct in the frame "main" for a link to an
>>>extern site:
>>>
>>><A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern" >
>>>
>>>the Browser is creating the window "extern", loading the page
>>>www.any.xy an setting the focus to "extern". But when I go return to
>>>"main" without closing "extern", a click to an other link (e.g.
>>>www.2nd_any.xy) on "main" does not setting the focus to "extern".
>>>
>>>For setting the focus to "extern" in the second case, I have used the
>>>following construct:
>>>
>>>
>>><A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern"
>>>onClick="set Timeout('extern =window.open(\' \',\'extern\'); fremd.focus();' ,500);">
>>>an example</A>[/color]
>>
>>
>> As written, that won't work because fremd is undefined.
>> I'll guess that you meant for it to be extern.focus()
>>
>> However, the following is simpler and doesn't depend on how long it
>> takes for your windows to open:
>>
>> <html>
>> <body>
>> <a href="http://www.google.com"
>> target="extern"
>>onclick="wind ow.open(this.hr ef,'extern').fo cus();return false">an example</a>[/color]
>
>Your code will reload entirely all over again the google.com page when
>that page already exists, when the code should only give that secondary
>extern window the focus to bring it back on top. And when the window is
>not created, the code calls the focus() method when it is not needed.
>So, I wouldn't say your code is making optimal use of user's system
>resources. Finally, your code just ignores the perspective of users
>altogether: this is important to address all the time, furthermore if
>the user has javascript support disabled and stats indicate that 5% to
>10% of users have javascript support disabled.
>
>I'll grant you that your code is better than code in many online
>tutorials I've seen before.[/color]

1. In the context of the original post, the same page would never
be refocused without loading new content. Since the content
is cached, that's not a major consideration, anyway.

2. Calling the focus() method when it is not needed costs so close
to nothing that it isn't worth discussing.

3. Explain your comment about ignoring the perspective of users.

4. If Javascript is disabled, it performs exactly as the OP's code
does. The only functionality that is lost is bringing the
existing window to the top. A <noscript> tag might be used to
warn visitors that the popup window may have it's content changed
without being made visible.

DU · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Lee wrote:
[color=blue]
> DU said:
>[color=green]
>>Lee wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benno_B=F6s ?= said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If I use the following construct in the frame "main" for a link to an
>>>>extern site:
>>>>
>>>><A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern" >
>>>>
>>>>the Browser is creating the window "extern", loading the page
>>>>www.any.xy an setting the focus to "extern". But when I go return to
>>>>"main" without closing "extern", a click to an other link (e.g.
>>>>www.2nd_any.xy) on "main" does not setting the focus to "extern".
>>>>
>>>>For setting the focus to "extern" in the second case, I have used the
>>>>following construct:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><A HREF="http://www.any.xy" TARGET="extern"
>>>>onClick="se tTimeout('exter n=window.open(\ '\',\'extern\') ;fremd.focus(); ',500);">
>>>>an example</A>
>>>
>>>
>>>As written, that won't work because fremd is undefined.
>>>I'll guess that you meant for it to be extern.focus()
>>>
>>>However, the following is simpler and doesn't depend on how long it
>>>takes for your windows to open:
>>>
>>><html>
>>><body>
>>><a href="http://www.google.com"
>>> target="extern"
>>>onclick="win dow.open(this.h ref,'extern').f ocus();return false">an example</a>[/color]
>>
>>Your code will reload entirely all over again the google.com page when
>>that page already exists, when the code should only give that secondary
>>extern window the focus to bring it back on top. And when the window is
>>not created, the code calls the focus() method when it is not needed.
>>So, I wouldn't say your code is making optimal use of user's system
>>resources. Finally, your code just ignores the perspective of users
>>altogether: this is important to address all the time, furthermore if
>>the user has javascript support disabled and stats indicate that 5% to
>>10% of users have javascript support disabled.
>>
>>I'll grant you that your code is better than code in many online
>>tutorials I've seen before.[/color]
>
>
> 1. In the context of the original post, the same page would never
> be refocused without loading new content. Since the content
> is cached, that's not a major consideration, anyway.
>[/color]

I think you don't understand. Whatever the code we're talking about, if
a window only needs to be brought back on top, then the code should be
agile enough, smart enough to do just that; not to send an http request
and reload the content again. Your code (and the OP's code; whoever's
code, that's not the issue) does not just bring the window on top; it
sends an http request to the server and reloads the content all over
again when it is obviously not needed.
[color=blue]
> 2. Calling the focus() method when it is not needed costs so close
> to nothing that it isn't worth discussing.
>[/color]

If it's not needed, then why including it?
If it's not needed, then removing it certainly won't cost anything and
can not cost anything on the user's system resources. Agreed?
My post was mostly oriented toward making a code to be the best adjusted
to the needs of a webpage.

[color=blue]
> 3. Explain your comment about ignoring the perspective of users.
>[/color]

Use title, cursor, icon to notify in advance that clicking a link will
open a new window or will recycle an already opened window. I gave
examples, demo pages in another post in this thread. I'm referring to J.
Nielsen recommendations , WAI recommendations and to many other usability
gurus, sites, tutorials here.
[color=blue]
> 4. If Javascript is disabled, it performs exactly as the OP's code
> does.[/color]

Yes.

The only functionality that is lost is bringing the[color=blue]
> existing window to the top. A <noscript> tag might be used to
> warn visitors that the popup window may have it's content changed
> without being made visible.
>
>[/color]

Well, then that would be an attempt to address the perspective of users
regarding reusing secondary windows.
If clicking a link opens up a new window without the user being informed
in advance, notified somehow, then the user can not, will not associate
an action (his left mouse button click on a link) with the result. He
becomes unsure about his understanding of a technology.

DU

**Lee** · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

DU said:[color=blue]
>
>Lee wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 1. In the context of the original post, the same page would never
>> be refocused without loading new content. Since the content
>> is cached, that's not a major consideration, anyway.
>>[/color]
>
>I think you don't understand. Whatever the code we're talking about, if
>a window only needs to be brought back on top, then the code should be
>agile enough, smart enough to do just that; not to send an http request
>and reload the content again. Your code (and the OP's code; whoever's
>code, that's not the issue) does not just bring the window on top; it
>sends an http request to the server and reloads the content all over
>again when it is obviously not needed.[/color]

In my experience, it's very rare for a person to want to bring
the same link up immediately. Particularly if they know that
the window is already open. They're much more likely to click
one of the other links, first. Also, it doesn't have to reload
the content all over again, because it's cached. The extra
code required to decide whether or not the page should be
loaded, vs simply refocused introduces more chances of errors
or of running into browser incompatibiliti es.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> 2. Calling the focus() method when it is not needed costs so close
>> to nothing that it isn't worth discussing.
>>[/color]
>
>If it's not needed, then why including it?
>If it's not needed, then removing it certainly won't cost anything and
>can not cost anything on the user's system resources. Agreed?[/color]

No, I don't agree. The alternative is to test to see if
it is needed, which is much less efficient.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> 3. Explain your comment about ignoring the perspective of users.
>>[/color]
>
>Use title, cursor, icon to notify in advance that clicking a link will
>open a new window or will recycle an already opened window.[/color]

Certainly, but that's beyond the scope of the OP's request.
My example wasn't intended to be a fully released web page.
It's just an example of how to open windows.

DU · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Lee wrote:
[color=blue]
> DU said:
>[color=green]
>>Lee wrote:[/color]
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>1. In the context of the original post, the same page would never
>>> be refocused without loading new content. Since the content
>>> is cached, that's not a major consideration, anyway.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>I think you don't understand. Whatever the code we're talking about, if
>>a window only needs to be brought back on top, then the code should be
>>agile enough, smart enough to do just that; not to send an http request
>>and reload the content again. Your code (and the OP's code; whoever's
>>code, that's not the issue) does not just bring the window on top; it
>>sends an http request to the server and reloads the content all over
>>again when it is obviously not needed.[/color]
>
>
> In my experience, it's very rare for a person to want to bring
> the same link up immediately. Particularly if they know that
> the window is already open.[/color]

Well, right here, usability studies don't support your understanding
experience. A significant minority of users do not notice that a new
window has been opened.

"(...) Users often don't notice that a new window has opened, especially
if they are using a small monitor where the windows are maximized to
fill up the screen. So a user who tries to return to the origin will be
confused by a grayed out Back button."
Jakob Nielsen, The Top Ten New Mistakes of Web Design: 2. Opening New
Browser Windows, May 30, 1999

The Top 10 Web Design Mistakes of 1999

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html

New technology and conventions have led to several new classes of usability problems in Web design.

"(...) spawning second browser windows can completely throw users off
track because it removes the one thing they are sure how to use: the
'Back' button.(...) In another recent study, six out of 17 users had
difficulty with multiple windows, and three of them required assistance
to get back to the first window and continue the task."
Carolyn Snyder, Seven tricks that Web users don't know: 7. Second
browser windows, June 2001

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/us-tricks/#h22470

"Research shows that most users don't like to run more than one
application at a time. In fact, many users are confused by multiple
applications."
Windows User Experience team,
Microsoft Windows User Experience Frequently Asked Questions: Why is the
taskbar at the bottom of the screen?,
March 2001

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwui/html/winuifaq.asp

They're much more likely to click[color=blue]
> one of the other links, first.[/color]

It depends on the page. Here we don't have any clue on how such page is
working. If a link is going to re-use an already opened secondary
window, then the user ought to know about that in advance. If a link is
going to open a new separate, secondary window, then the user ought to
know that in advance.

Also, it doesn't have to reload[color=blue]
> the content all over again, because it's cached.[/color]

It does reload the *cached* content all over again when it should not.
It does send an http request to the server when it should not, when
there is no need for that.

The extra[color=blue]
> code required to decide whether or not the page should be
> loaded,[/color]

Your approach brings more code to execute, in particular code that don't
need to be executed to begin with. A code should be smart enough to meet
the webpage needs.

vs simply refocused introduces more chances of errors[color=blue]
> or of running into browser incompatibiliti es.
>[/color]

I can demonstrate otherwise. I have not find any browser
incompatibiliti es regarding focus() support and window object reference
support with NS 6.x, NS 7.x, Mozilla 1.x, Opera 7.x, MSIE 6, K-meleon
0.8.x and any/all browsers I could find on this.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>2. Calling the focus() method when it is not needed costs so close
>>> to nothing that it isn't worth discussing.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>If it's not needed, then why including it?
>>If it's not needed, then removing it certainly won't cost anything and
>>can not cost anything on the user's system resources. Agreed?[/color]
>
>
> No, I don't agree. The alternative is to test to see if
> it is needed, which is much less efficient.
>[/color]

LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!

DU
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>3. Explain your comment about ignoring the perspective of users.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Use title, cursor, icon to notify in advance that clicking a link will
>>open a new window or will recycle an already opened window.[/color]
>
>
> Certainly, but that's beyond the scope of the OP's request.
> My example wasn't intended to be a fully released web page.
> It's just an example of how to open windows.
>[/color]

DU · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Lee wrote:

The extra[color=blue]
> code required to decide whether or not the page should be
> loaded, vs simply refocused introduces more chances of errors
> or of running into browser incompatibiliti es.
>
>[/color]

Here's an interactive demo that I posted more than 1 year ago where one
can bring back on top a secondary window. You can look around to find a
browser which won't support that interactive demo: I have failed to find
a single one.

IIS 7.5 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Popup/PopupAndNetscape7.html#RaiseLowerSetting

DU

**Lee** · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

DU said:[color=blue]
>
>Lee wrote:
>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> In my experience, it's very rare for a person to want to bring
>> the same link up immediately. Particularly if they know that
>> the window is already open.[/color]
>
>Well, right here, usability studies don't support your understanding
>experience. A significant minority of users do not notice that a new
>window has been opened.[/color]

Think about that in the context of what we're talking about.
If they click on a link, and the popup opens, they may not
be able to find their way back to the page with the links
on it. That means that they're not going to be clicking on
any more links, anyway, so it's not relevant.

Your cites are arguing against using popup windows at all,
which is a valid consideration, but out of scope of this
discussion.

[color=blue]
> Also, it doesn't have to reload[color=green]
>> the content all over again, because it's cached.[/color]
>
>It does reload the *cached* content all over again when it should not.
>It does send an http request to the server when it should not, when
>there is no need for that.
>
> The extra[color=green]
>> code required to decide whether or not the page should be
>> loaded,[/color]
>
>Your approach brings more code to execute, in particular code that don't
>need to be executed to begin with. A code should be smart enough to meet
>the webpage needs.[/color]

Show me your alternative that uses less code.

[color=blue]
> vs simply refocused introduces more chances of errors[color=green]
>> or of running into browser incompatibiliti es.
>>[/color]
>
>I can demonstrate otherwise. I have not find any browser
>incompatibilit ies regarding focus() support and window object reference
>support with NS 6.x, NS 7.x, Mozilla 1.x, Opera 7.x, MSIE 6, K-meleon
>0.8.x and any/all browsers I could find on this.[/color]

Any code that you have to write to avoid a single focus()
call is too much.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>2. Calling the focus() method when it is not needed costs so close
>>>> to nothing that it isn't worth discussing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If it's not needed, then why including it?
>>>If it's not needed, then removing it certainly won't cost anything and
>>>can not cost anything on the user's system resources. Agreed?[/color]
>>
>>
>> No, I don't agree. The alternative is to test to see if
>> it is needed, which is much less efficient.
>>[/color]
>
>LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!![/color]

That's a pretty poor excuse for an argument.
How would you ensure that the correct window is on top in
a way that executes less code than a single focus()?

**Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn** · Jul 23 '05, 11:36 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Lee schrieb:[color=blue]
> DU said:[color=green]
>> Lee wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> [...] <a href="http://www.google.com" target="extern"
>>> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return false">an
>>> example</a>[/color]
>> [...] And when the window is not created, the code calls the focus()
>> method when it is not needed.[/color]
>
> 2. Calling the focus() method when it is not needed costs so close to
> nothing that it isn't worth discussing.[/color]

I don't agree with DU's other statements, however:

Calling a method for an object, whose reference is returned by another
method, without checking if the reference is valid and without checking
if the object returned has the former method, is error-prone. So I
strongly recommend to write at least

var w = window.open(... ); if (w && !w.closed && w.focus) { w.focus(); };

instead.

Besides, both of you violate Internet standards (namely RFCs 1036 and
2822) by using non-existing "From:" addresses and, not less important,
you disregard the rules of this newsgroup described in its FAQ which
say that you should trim your quotes to the absolute necessary.

PointedEars

**Lee** · Jul 23 '05, 11:37 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:[color=blue]
>
>Lee schrieb:[color=green]
>> DU said:[color=darkred]
>>> Lee wrote:
>>>> [...] <a href="http://www.google.com" target="extern"
>>>> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return false">an[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>I don't agree with DU's other statements, however:
>
>Calling a method for an object, whose reference is returned by another
>method, without checking if the reference is valid and without checking
>if the object returned has the former method, is error-prone.[/color]

Only if it's possible for the method to fail to return a valid
object. I don't believe that can happen in this case. If it
does, the page has more serious problems than simply calling a
non-existant method.

[color=blue]
>Besides, both of you violate Internet standards (namely RFCs 1036 and
>2822) by using non-existing "From:" addresses and, not less important,
>you disregard the rules of this newsgroup described in its FAQ which
>say that you should trim your quotes to the absolute necessary.[/color]

There's nothing wrong with my From address, if you can figure out
what part to remove. Mail to that address is rarely read, though.
I do trim quotes to what I believe is necessary.

**Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn** · Jul 23 '05, 11:37 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Lee schrieb:[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:[color=green]
>> Lee schrieb:[color=darkred]
>>> DU said:
>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>> [...] <a href="http://www.google.com" target="extern"
>>>>> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return
>>>>> false">an[/color]
>>
>> I don't agree with DU's other statements, however:
>>
>> Calling a method for an object, whose reference is returned by
>> another method, without checking if the reference is valid and
>> without checking if the object returned has the former method, is
>> error-prone.[/color]
>
> Only if it's possible for the method to fail to return a valid
> object.[/color]

No. From JavaScript version 1.5 on, "window" is removed from the core
language and becomes a host object. As client-side host objects are
part of the UA's DOM and those DOMs are different (although there are
some mutualities called "DOM Level 0"), their methods are different.
Since JScript never contained

<http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami>
[color=blue]
> I don't believe that can happen in this case.[/color]

What you believe is irrelevant. What specs and references say is
relevant. window.open() returns a reference to a Window object if
successful, `null' or at least not a Window object otherwise:

<http://devedge.netscap e.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/window.html#120 2731>
<http://msdn.microsoft. com/library/default.asp?url =/workshop/author/dhtml/dhtml_node_entr y.asp>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Besides, both of you violate Internet standards (namely RFCs 1036
>> and 2822) by using non-existing "From:" addresses [...][/color]
>
> There's nothing wrong with my From address, [...][/color]

IBTD!

| The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
| person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. [...]
(RFC 1036 "Standard for interchange of USENET messages", section 2.1.1)

| A mailbox receives mail. [...]
(RFC 2822 "Internet Message Format", section 3.4.)

| - Forging of news articles is generally censured. [...]
(RFC 1855 "Netiquette Guidelines", section 3.1.3)

| The standards upon which Usenet is built, that is, the specification
| for the system's operation, requires that the poster use a legitimate
| email address. Making exceptions to standards simply for short-term
| convenience is unwise at best. At worst, it jeopardizes the Internet's
| long-term viability to continue the same level of utility that it has
| enjoyed.
|
| Allowing standards to be broken is contradictory to the philosophy
| behind the Internet [...]
(<http://www.interhack.n et/pubs/munging-harmful/>)

| From: Lee <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
(<canavg04om@dr n.newsguy.com>)

$ host -t mx cox.net
cox.net MX 100 mx.east.cox.net
cox.net MX 100 mx.west.cox.net
$ telnet mx.east.cox.net smtp
Trying 68.1.17.3...
Connected to mx.east.cox.net .
Escape character is '^]'.
220 lakermmtai17.co x.net ESMTP server (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02
201-2131-111-104-20040324) ready Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:54:42 -0400
mail from:<REM0VElbs pamtrap@cox.net >
250 Sender <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> Ok
rcpt to:<REM0VElbspa mtrap@cox.net>
550 Invalid recipient: <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
quit
221 lakermmtai17.co x.net ESMTP server closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
$ telnet mx.west.cox.net smtp
Trying 68.6.19.3...
Connected to mx.west.cox.net .
Escape character is '^]'.
220 fed1rmmtai19.co x.net ESMTP server (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02
201-2131-111-104-20040324) ready Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:55:38 -0400
mail from:<REM0VElbs pamtrap@cox.net >
250 Sender <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> Ok
rcpt to:<REM0VElbspa mtrap@cox.net>
550 Invalid recipient: <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
quit
221 fed1rmmtai19.co x.net ESMTP server closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.

| *Acceptable Use Policy*
| Updated 2/4/04
|
| 14. *Newsgroups.* [...]
| *Forging, altering or removing header information is prohibited.*
| [...]
| *Cox reserves the right to discontinue access to any Usenet newsgroup
| at any time for any reason.*
| [...]
| *How to Contact Cox.* For any questions regarding this AUP, complaints
| of violations, or cancellation notices, please contact Cox at one of
| the following:
|
| E-mail: abuse@cox.net
| [...]
(<http://www.cox.com/policy/#aup_14>)

There is *anything* wrong with your From "address".

PointedEars

**Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn** · Jul 23 '05, 11:37 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Lee schrieb:[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:[color=green]
>> Lee schrieb:[color=darkred]
>>> DU said:
>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>> [...] <a href="http://www.google.com" target="extern"
>>>>> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return
>>>>> false">an[/color]
>>
>> I don't agree with DU's other statements, however:
>>
>> Calling a method for an object, whose reference is returned by
>> another method, without checking if the reference is valid and
>> without checking if the object returned has the former method, is
>> error-prone.[/color]
>
> Only if it's possible for the method to fail to return a valid
> object.[/color]

No. From JavaScript version 1.5 on, "window" is removed from the core
language and becomes a host object. As client-side host objects are
part of the UA's DOM and those DOMs are different (although there are
some mutualities called "DOM Level 0"), their methods are different.

<http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami>
[color=blue]
> I don't believe that can happen in this case.[/color]

What you believe is irrelevant. What specs and references say is
relevant. window.open() returns a reference to a Window object if
successful, `null' or at least not a Window object otherwise:

<http://devedge.netscap e.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/window.html#120 2731>
<http://msdn.microsoft. com/library/default.asp?url =/workshop/author/dhtml/dhtml_node_entr y.asp>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Besides, both of you violate Internet standards (namely RFCs 1036
>> and 2822) by using non-existing "From:" addresses [...][/color]
>
> There's nothing wrong with my From address, [...][/color]

IBTD!

| The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
| person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. [...]
(RFC 1036 "Standard for interchange of USENET messages", section 2.1.1)

| A mailbox receives mail. [...]
(RFC 2822 "Internet Message Format", section 3.4.)

| - Forging of news articles is generally censured. [...]
(RFC 1855 "Netiquette Guidelines", section 3.1.3)

| The standards upon which Usenet is built, that is, the specification
| for the system's operation, requires that the poster use a legitimate
| email address. Making exceptions to standards simply for short-term
| convenience is unwise at best. At worst, it jeopardizes the Internet's
| long-term viability to continue the same level of utility that it has
| enjoyed.
|
| Allowing standards to be broken is contradictory to the philosophy
| behind the Internet [...]
(<http://www.interhack.n et/pubs/munging-harmful/>)

| From: Lee <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
(<canavg04om@dr n.newsguy.com>)

$ host -t mx cox.net
cox.net MX 100 mx.east.cox.net
cox.net MX 100 mx.west.cox.net
$ telnet mx.east.cox.net smtp
Trying 68.1.17.3...
Connected to mx.east.cox.net .
Escape character is '^]'.
220 lakermmtai17.co x.net ESMTP server (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02
201-2131-111-104-20040324) ready Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:54:42 -0400
mail from:<REM0VElbs pamtrap@cox.net >
250 Sender <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> Ok
rcpt to:<REM0VElbspa mtrap@cox.net>
550 Invalid recipient: <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
quit
221 lakermmtai17.co x.net ESMTP server closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
$ telnet mx.west.cox.net smtp
Trying 68.6.19.3...
Connected to mx.west.cox.net .
Escape character is '^]'.
220 fed1rmmtai19.co x.net ESMTP server (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02
201-2131-111-104-20040324) ready Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:55:38 -0400
mail from:<REM0VElbs pamtrap@cox.net >
250 Sender <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> Ok
rcpt to:<REM0VElbspa mtrap@cox.net>
550 Invalid recipient: <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
quit
221 fed1rmmtai19.co x.net ESMTP server closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.

| *Acceptable Use Policy*
| Updated 2/4/04
|
| 14. *Newsgroups.* [...]
| *Forging, altering or removing header information is prohibited.*
| [...]
| *Cox reserves the right to discontinue access to any Usenet newsgroup
| at any time for any reason.*
| [...]
| *How to Contact Cox.* For any questions regarding this AUP, complaints
| of violations, or cancellation notices, please contact Cox at one of
| the following:
|
| E-mail: abuse@cox.net
| [...]
(<http://www.cox.com/policy/#aup_14>)

There is *anything* wrong with your From "address".

PointedEars

Xref: uni-berlin.de comp.lang.javas cript:446174

Lee schrieb:[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:[color=green]
>> Lee schrieb:[color=darkred]
>>> DU said:
>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>> [...] <a href="http://www.google.com" target="extern"
>>>>> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return
>>>>> false">an[/color]
>>
>> I don't agree with DU's other statements, however:
>>
>> Calling a method for an object, whose reference is returned by
>> another method, without checking if the reference is valid and
>> without checking if the object returned has the former method, is
>> error-prone.[/color]
>
> Only if it's possible for the method to fail to return a valid
> object.[/color]

No. From JavaScript version 1.5 on, "window" is removed from the core
language and becomes a host object. As client-side host objects are
part of the UA's DOM and those DOMs are different (although there are
some mutualities called "DOM Level 0"), their methods are different.
Since JScript never contained

<http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami>
[color=blue]
> I don't believe that can happen in this case.[/color]

What you believe is irrelevant. What specs and references say is
relevant. window.open() returns a reference to a Window object if
successful, `null' or at least not a Window object otherwise:

<http://devedge.netscap e.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/window.html#120 2731>
<http://msdn.microsoft. com/library/default.asp?url =/workshop/author/dhtml/dhtml_node_entr y.asp>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Besides, both of you violate Internet standards (namely RFCs 1036
>> and 2822) by using non-existing "From:" addresses [...][/color]
>
> There's nothing wrong with my From address, [...][/color]

IBTD!

| The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
| person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. [...]
(RFC 1036 "Standard for interchange of USENET messages", section 2.1.1)

| A mailbox receives mail. [...]
(RFC 2822 "Internet Message Format", section 3.4.)

| - Forging of news articles is generally censured. [...]
(RFC 1855 "Netiquette Guidelines", section 3.1.3)

| The standards upon which Usenet is built, that is, the specification
| for the system's operation, requires that the poster use a legitimate
| email address. Making exceptions to standards simply for short-term
| convenience is unwise at best. At worst, it jeopardizes the Internet's
| long-term viability to continue the same level of utility that it has
| enjoyed.
|
| Allowing standards to be broken is contradictory to the philosophy
| behind the Internet [...]
(<http://www.interhack.n et/pubs/munging-harmful/>)

| From: Lee <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
(<canavg04om@dr n.newsguy.com>)

$ host -t mx cox.net
cox.net MX 100 mx.east.cox.net
cox.net MX 100 mx.west.cox.net
$ telnet mx.east.cox.net smtp
Trying 68.1.17.3...
Connected to mx.east.cox.net .
Escape character is '^]'.
220 lakermmtai17.co x.net ESMTP server (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02
201-2131-111-104-20040324) ready Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:54:42 -0400
mail from:<REM0VElbs pamtrap@cox.net >
250 Sender <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> Ok
rcpt to:<REM0VElbspa mtrap@cox.net>
550 Invalid recipient: <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
quit
221 lakermmtai17.co x.net ESMTP server closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
$ telnet mx.west.cox.net smtp
Trying 68.6.19.3...
Connected to mx.west.cox.net .
Escape character is '^]'.
220 fed1rmmtai19.co x.net ESMTP server (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02
201-2131-111-104-20040324) ready Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:55:38 -0400
mail from:<REM0VElbs pamtrap@cox.net >
250 Sender <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> Ok
rcpt to:<REM0VElbspa mtrap@cox.net>
550 Invalid recipient: <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
quit
221 fed1rmmtai19.co x.net ESMTP server closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.

| *Acceptable Use Policy*
| Updated 2/4/04
|
| 14. *Newsgroups.* [...]
| *Forging, altering or removing header information is prohibited.*
| [...]
| *Cox reserves the right to discontinue access to any Usenet newsgroup
| at any time for any reason.*
| [...]
| *How to Contact Cox.* For any questions regarding this AUP, complaints
| of violations, or cancellation notices, please contact Cox at one of
| the following:
|
| E-mail: abuse@cox.net
| [...]
(<http://www.cox.com/policy/#aup_14>)

There is *anything* wrong with your From "address".

PointedEars

**Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn** · Jul 23 '05, 11:37 AM

Re: Focus on second window

Lee wrote:[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:[color=green]
>> Lee schrieb:[color=darkred]
>>> DU said:
>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>> [...] <a href="http://www.google.com" target="extern"
>>>>> onclick="window .open(this.href ,'extern').focu s();return
>>>>> false">an[/color]
>>
>> I don't agree with DU's other statements, however:
>>
>> Calling a method for an object, whose reference is returned by
>> another method, without checking if the reference is valid and
>> without checking if the object returned has the former method, is
>> error-prone.[/color]
>
> Only if it's possible for the method to fail to return a valid
> object.[/color]

No. From JavaScript version 1.5 on, "window" is removed from the core
language and becomes a host object. As client-side host objects are
part of the UA's DOM and those DOMs are different (although there are
some mutualities called "DOM Level 0"), their methods are different.

<http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami>
[color=blue]
> I don't believe that can happen in this case.[/color]

What you believe is irrelevant. What specs and references say is
relevant. window.open() returns a reference to a Window object if
successful, `null' or at least not a Window object otherwise:

<http://devedge.netscap e.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/window.html#120 2731>
<http://msdn.microsoft. com/library/default.asp?url =/workshop/author/dhtml/dhtml_node_entr y.asp>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Besides, both of you violate Internet standards (namely RFCs 1036
>> and 2822) by using non-existing "From:" addresses [...][/color]
>
> There's nothing wrong with my From address, [...][/color]

IBTD!

| The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
| person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. [...]
(RFC 1036 "Standard for interchange of USENET messages", section 2.1.1)

| A mailbox receives mail. [...]
(RFC 2822 "Internet Message Format", section 3.4.)

| - Forging of news articles is generally censured. [...]
(RFC 1855 "Netiquette Guidelines", section 3.1.3)

| The standards upon which Usenet is built, that is, the specification
| for the system's operation, requires that the poster use a legitimate
| email address. Making exceptions to standards simply for short-term
| convenience is unwise at best. At worst, it jeopardizes the Internet's
| long-term viability to continue the same level of utility that it has
| enjoyed.
|
| Allowing standards to be broken is contradictory to the philosophy
| behind the Internet [...]
(<http://www.interhack.n et/pubs/munging-harmful/>)

| From: Lee <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
(<canavg04om@dr n.newsguy.com>)

$ host -t mx cox.net
cox.net MX 100 mx.east.cox.net
cox.net MX 100 mx.west.cox.net
$ telnet mx.east.cox.net smtp
Trying 68.1.17.3...
Connected to mx.east.cox.net .
Escape character is '^]'.
220 lakermmtai17.co x.net ESMTP server (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02
201-2131-111-104-20040324) ready Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:54:42 -0400
mail from:<REM0VElbs pamtrap@cox.net >
250 Sender <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> Ok
rcpt to:<REM0VElbspa mtrap@cox.net>
550 Invalid recipient: <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
quit
221 lakermmtai17.co x.net ESMTP server closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
$ telnet mx.west.cox.net smtp
Trying 68.6.19.3...
Connected to mx.west.cox.net .
Escape character is '^]'.
220 fed1rmmtai19.co x.net ESMTP server (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02
201-2131-111-104-20040324) ready Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:55:38 -0400
mail from:<REM0VElbs pamtrap@cox.net >
250 Sender <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> Ok
rcpt to:<REM0VElbspa mtrap@cox.net>
550 Invalid recipient: <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net>
quit
221 fed1rmmtai19.co x.net ESMTP server closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.

| *Acceptable Use Policy*
| Updated 2/4/04
|
| 14. *Newsgroups.* [...]
| *Forging, altering or removing header information is prohibited.*
| [...]
| *Cox reserves the right to discontinue access to any Usenet newsgroup
| at any time for any reason.*
| [...]
| *How to Contact Cox.* For any questions regarding this AUP, complaints
| of violations, or cancellation notices, please contact Cox at one of
| the following:
|
| E-mail: abuse@cox.net
| [...]
(<http://www.cox.com/policy/#aup_14>)

There is *everything* wrong with your From "address".

PointedEars

Focus on second window

Focus on second window

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment