By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,403 Members | 1,360 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,403 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

P: n/a

Hi group,

I encoutered page validation error, but I don't know a way around.

The page has the following doctype:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Some hyperlinks need to open to a new window, so I used the (wrong)
target="" attribute.

w3c validation gave me this:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Validation Output: 1 Error
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. Error Line 13, Column 108: there is no attribute "TARGET".

…="http://www.example.com" target="_blank">mylink</aen

You have used the attribute named above in your document, but the
document type you are using does not support that attribute for this
element. This error is often caused by incorrect use of the "Strict"
document type with a document that uses frames (e.g. you must use the
"Transitional" document type to get the "target" attribute), or by using
vendor proprietary extensions such as "marginheight" (this is usually
fixed by using CSS to achieve the desired effect instead).

This error may also result if the element itself is not supported in the
document type you are using, as an undefined element will have no
supported attributes; in this case, see the element-undefined error
message for further information.

How to fix: check the spelling and case of the element and attribute,
(Remember XHTML is all lower-case) and/or check that they are both
allowed in the chosen document type, and/or use CSS instead of this
attribute. If you received this error when using the <embedelement to
incorporate flash media in a Web page, see the FAQ item on valid flash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
My question: How do I use the good old target in hyperlinks without
JavaScript?

Thanks for your time.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08
Share this Question
Share on Google+
92 Replies


P: n/a

(Please ignore previous version. It has several typos that
change the meaning. Here is the corrected version:

Erwin Moller wrote:
>But..but...but.. I cannot be the first who makes this argument, since I
am a late starter with STRICT.
Does anybody know how and why the w3c came to this decision?
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 user interface.

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 optional and is determined by CSS.

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

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

Those who, like you, disagree with the basic philosophy behind
HTML 4.01 are free to use Transitional, which allows many of
the old ways. Those who. like me, agree with the basic
philosophy behind HTML 4.01 do not want our content, styling
and user behavior to be mixed together, and we certainly do
not want changes to browser behavior to be non-optional.
>What I want is this:
1) Create webpages that validate in STRICT.
Why? It isn't because you agree with the definition of what
should or should not be allowed in that doctype -- you don't.

It isn't because there is no doctype that allows target -- there is.

It isn't because your users will see any difference -- they won't.

Why use strict instead of what I suggested, which is to make
everything else validate as strict, add your not-strict target
tag, and serve it as transitional?
>So this is a kind of frustrating situation for me.
Apparently w3c decided the target attribute is not wanted in STRICT,
And, as you can see from this thread, many of us fully agree with that
decision.
>but I don't have a solution for my problem:
Sure you do. HTML 4.01 Transitional.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Oct 8 '08 #51

P: n/a
Erwin Moller wrote:
The page has the following doctype:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Some hyperlinks need to open to a new window, so I used the (wrong)
target="" attribute.
As others have pointed out, frame-related markup like the target attribute
have been relegated to Transitional.

If you otherwise agree with the spirit of Strict, then you could validate
against a custom DTD. I created one that is HTML 4.01 Strict, with support
for <base target="_top"added.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"It said 'Insert disk #3', but only two will fit..."
Oct 8 '08 #52

P: n/a
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.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
Oct 8 '08 #53

P: n/a
In article <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrote:
Why do people think I want to trap visitors?
Because I run a clinic for the screaming jibbering humans that have been
to sites that constantly spawn windows. We are talking very dramatic
psychological damage here, innocents get to feel trapped and smothered.

(Would you care to make a contribution to the running costs of my
clinic, considering you are championing "target"? Please, not US dollars
for the moment, Chinese currency I think...)

--
dorayme
Oct 8 '08 #54

P: n/a
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
databasequery 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.
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? 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'.

--
Stanimir
Oct 8 '08 #55

P: n/a
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.,

..singleEntryLink {
color: black;
background-color: white;
target: singleWindow;
}

<a href="?show=id1234" class="singleEntryLink">show me 1234</a>
Else, I almost fully agree with Erwin. I too build (well built) web
pages (have them generated), in web applications, some like Erwin's
(wanting one extended/editable db table or whatnot, preserving the main
table), some like games where

- I don't want to break the applet running/controling various stuff, and
- when things have to be shown simultanously in different windows;
- each of them with their own history needed.

My players/users are quite comfortable with me offering a few dedicated
windows for them (I know them - I have feedback).

I am just a millimetre away from serving STRICT, as Erwin, and my pride
in good coding makes me want using STRICT, but as the target attribute
is not part of it, I continue writing de facto STRICT, but serve it as
TRANSITIONAL.

Hey, I don't even know if serving it as STRICT would change anything at
all, for the end user or his browser. And it wouldn't serve any purpose
either other than my pride anyway. Still sad.

I agree with the opponents to Erwin that on generic
HTML/homepage-site-pages, target should not be used, due to various
reasons, all laid out in this thread.

But I do agree with Erwin that the scope of STRICT doctype apparently
wasn't meant for him and me and the whole lot of us who are willing to
write STRICT but really need the target. So obviously STRICT just isn't
for us. But as Erwin, I don't like being dismissed with a second-to-best
doctype name. After all, just the name "transitional" strongly suggests
that is meant to go away once their authors become clever enough to
write correctly - and that clever authors already now may write like the
recommendation says.

So maybe STRICT isn't wrong, but there should be another, honourable,
doctype for us.

- Daniel
Oct 8 '08 #56

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwriting
in news:48*********************@news.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="thispage">
<fieldset><legend>Whatever</legend>
.....
</fieldset>
</form>
</div>
<!-- footer or other markup -->

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Oct 8 '08 #57

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
<do************@optusnet.com.auwriting in news:doraymeRidThis-
BA*******************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
(Would you care to make a contribution to the running costs of my
clinic, considering you are championing "target"? Please, not US dollars
for the moment, Chinese currency I think...)

http://www.starfall.com/n/chinese-fa...ree/load.htm?f (Flash)

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Oct 8 '08 #58

P: n/a
On 2008-10-08, Adrienne Boswell wrote:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
<do************@optusnet.com.auwriting in news:doraymeRidThis-
BA*******************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>(Would you care to make a contribution to the running costs of my
clinic, considering you are championing "target"? Please, not US dollars
for the moment, Chinese currency I think...)


http://www.starfall.com/n/chinese-fa...ree/load.htm?f (Flash)

Trouble-Shooting Guide
Please install the Flash Player Plugin or

UPGRADE YOUR BROWSER.

I have the latest browser with the latest plugin!

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Oct 8 '08 #59

P: n/a
In article <b5*************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
On 2008-10-08, Adrienne Boswell wrote:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
<do************@optusnet.com.auwriting in news:doraymeRidThis-
BA*******************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
(Would you care to make a contribution to the running costs of my
clinic, considering you are championing "target"? Please, not US dollars
for the moment, Chinese currency I think...)

http://www.starfall.com/n/chinese-fa...ree/load.htm?f (Flash)


Trouble-Shooting Guide
Please install the Flash Player Plugin or

UPGRADE YOUR BROWSER.

I have the latest browser with the latest plugin!
Perhaps you are too modern then, I had no technical trouble.. what Flash
have I got... let's see...

Flash Player.plugin 9.0.0
Flash Player Enabler.plugin 9.0.47
QuickTime Plugin.plugin 7.1.3
QuickTime Plugin.webplugin 7.1.3

Anyway, my problem is to work out the relevance of them to my stated
desire to fund the clinic where I treat victims of link target mark
up... I saw the first one and stopped as I am in the tight limit part of
the day for downloads on my plan.

--
dorayme
Oct 9 '08 #60

P: n/a

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.,

.singleEntryLink {
color: black;
background-color: white;
target: singleWindow;
}

<a href="?show=id1234" class="singleEntryLink">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(JavaScript)
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.com/>

Oct 9 '08 #61

P: n/a
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message <slrngep1ih.43j.usenet@de
branded.larseighner.com>, Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:16:02, Lars Eighner
<us****@larseighner.composted:
>In our last episode, <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>, the lovely
and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystems.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.demon.co.uk/- FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm- also batprogs.htm.
Oct 9 '08 #62

P: n/a

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.com/>

Oct 9 '08 #63

P: n/a
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.
Oct 10 '08 #64

P: n/a

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
databasequery 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/
============================
Oct 10 '08 #65

P: n/a

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/
============================
Oct 10 '08 #66

P: n/a

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/
============================
Oct 10 '08 #67

P: n/a
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

Oct 10 '08 #68

P: n/a

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.com/>

Oct 10 '08 #69

P: n/a
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/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
Oct 11 '08 #70

P: n/a

Eric B. Bednarz wrote:
>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/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.com/>

Oct 11 '08 #71

P: n/a

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/
============================
Oct 13 '08 #72

P: n/a
Adrienne Boswell schreef:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwriting
in news:48*********************@news.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="thispage">
<fieldset><legend>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/
============================
Oct 13 '08 #73

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwriting
in news:48*********************@news.xs4all.nl:
Adrienne Boswell schreef:
>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spa myourself.com>
writing
>in news:48*********************@news.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="thispage">
<fieldset><legend>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

Oct 13 '08 #74

P: n/a
Adrienne Boswell schreef:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwriting
in news:48*********************@news.xs4all.nl:
>Adrienne Boswell schreef:
>>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@sp amyourself.com>
writing
>>in news:48*********************@news.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="thispage">
<fieldset><legend>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

--
Oct 14 '08 #75

P: n/a
Erwin Moller schreef:
Adrienne Boswell schreef:
>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spa myourself.com>
writing in news:48*********************@news.xs4all.nl:
>>Adrienne Boswell schreef:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@s pamyourself.com>
writing
>>>in news:48*********************@news.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="thispage">
<fieldset><legend>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.
Can’t you have the query open in an <objectwhich is itself in the
right div, as proposed above? Sort of the ‘proper’ replacement for
iframe. But then, it is badly supported yet.

H.
--
Hendrik Maryns
http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/
==================
Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Oct 14 '08 #76

P: n/a
Hendrik Maryns schreef:
Erwin Moller schreef:
<snip>
>>>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.

Can’t you have the query open in an <objectwhich is itself in the
right div, as proposed above? Sort of the ‘proper’ replacement for
iframe. But then, it is badly supported yet.
Hi,

Sure you can, but that would require JavaScript or target again. :-/

I asked the same question to Adrienne earlier in this thread because I
was hoping for something as you sugested. ;-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
>
H.

--
Oct 14 '08 #77

P: n/a
On Oct 14, 12:07*pm, Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spam yourself.comwrote:
that would require JavaScript or target again. :-/
If you want people to view some information and also
to fill-in a form in the same time,
can't you re-organize things for everything the be in
the same window, as already suggested?
You mentioned 1000 rows of data,
nobody can follow well that amount of information,
maybe you can 'optimize' things, have
fewer and easier to find rows of data (?)

Oct 14 '08 #78

P: n/a
my*******************@googlemail.com schreef:
On Oct 14, 12:07 pm, Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spam yourself.comwrote:
>that would require JavaScript or target again. :-/

If you want people to view some information and also
to fill-in a form in the same time,
can't you re-organize things for everything the be in
the same window, as already suggested?
You mentioned 1000 rows of data,
nobody can follow well that amount of information,
maybe you can 'optimize' things, have
fewer and easier to find rows of data (?)
Surely I can do that, and I will in most circumstances.
Actually, in almost all circumstances I can demand JavaScript for
adminlike tasks that need that many information, so the problem is gone
since JavaScript means new windows, new divs, AJAX, etc.

I gave this example in an effort to show how much target= is missing in
STRICT, allthough I do understand now WHY it is not included (thanks to
Guy Macon).

As for returning a 1000 rows as a result: That is handy for some people
(not including me) for some admintasks.

Regards,
Erwin Moller
Oct 14 '08 #79

P: n/a
On Oct 14, 6:51*pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.dewrote:
I think that there are "thin lines" everywhere in the concept, and that they
are unavoidable and do not invalidate the concept.
It is quite simple really,
just look at the DTDs of the (X)HTML doctypes.
The target attribute is of type %FrameTarget
and as Guy Macon and others keep writing,
everything to do with frames
is out of the (X)HTML Strict DTD.
If you want to use the target attribute
of <aelements, use (X)HTML Transitional.
There is nothing wrong with (X)HTML Transitional, if you
really need some of the features
that are not in the Strict DTD,
and if you have everything else valid Strict.

Oct 14 '08 #80

P: n/a
In article <F-*********************@giganews.com>,
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
>

Why do your posts in my newsreader often/always start with a blank space
at the top? (The quote marks you see above only appear when I reply).

--
dorayme
Oct 14 '08 #81

P: n/a
In article
<Pi*******************************@lxhri01.lrz.l rz-muenchen.de>,
Helmut Richter <hh***@web.dewrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Erwin Moller wrote:
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).

I think that there are "thin lines" everywhere in the concept, and that they
are unavoidable and do not invalidate the concept.
Depends on exactly what concept we are talking about. Semantic mark up
is deeply presentational. But it is not as pretty or even as helpful to
the end user as semantic mark up enhanced with CSS.

The whole point of semantic mark up is el basic, bottom-line
presentation that can be interpreted by humans in such a way that
information the author wants to convey is so received.

Think how destructive

* {margin: 0; padding: 0;}

can be without replacement margins and padding follow-ups in CSS. And
now further imagine that *no* browser default styling (or presentational
coding) was provided for P or H1 or H2 or UL or LI etc. You would get
unadorned impossible to read material. It is the presentation, however
basic, that is everything!

So, of course, the line is thin between what the browser provides and
the author can add. They are both dealing in the same basic coinage.

--
dorayme
Oct 14 '08 #82

P: n/a
In article <gd**********@aioe.org>,
"Petr Vileta \(fidokomik\)" <st****@practisoft.czwrote:
By my opinion web is not
about "documents" but about "contents". The same stupid thesis is "make a
film
(movie) so that will be possible to show it in black/white TV". Yes of
course,
few film masters know it, but majority must use colors to make good film.
The majority are likely to make worse films if they use colour. The
argument is simple. The majority of films are crap. Crap in colour is
more revolting than crap in Black & White.

As for the web not being about documents but about content, this is as
sensible as saying a man is not what he eats because he is a man and
what he eats is other animals and plants. It is as big a
misunderstanding.

--
dorayme
Oct 15 '08 #83

P: n/a


dorayme wrote:
>Why do your posts in my newsreader often/always start
with a blank space at the top?
A standard NNTP post has one blank line that seperates the
header from the body, which most newsreaders suppress.

I add a second blank line because I prefer

W wrote:
>X wrote:
>>Y wrote:
>>>Z wrote:
and adding the single blank line makes most replies come out the
way I like rather than being like this:

W wrote:
>X wrote:
>>Y wrote:
>>>Z wrote:
From your post, it appaers that you are seeing three blank
lines, not the one that I intended. That is not what I
wanted, and I may stop adding the extra line because of it.

I didn't add any extra line to the top of this post.
How many blank lines do you see at the top? Zero, I hope.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 15 '08 #84

P: n/a
In article <I8*********************@giganews.com>,
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
dorayme wrote:
Why do your posts in my newsreader often/always start
with a blank space at the top?

A standard NNTP post has one blank line that seperates the
header from the body, which most newsreaders suppress.

I add a second blank line because I prefer

W wrote:
X wrote:
>Y wrote:

Z wrote:

and adding the single blank line makes most replies come out the
way I like rather than being like this:

W wrote:
X wrote:
>Y wrote:

Z wrote:

From your post, it appaers that you are seeing three blank
lines, not the one that I intended. That is not what I
wanted, and I may stop adding the extra line because of it.

I didn't add any extra line to the top of this post.
How many blank lines do you see at the top? Zero, I hope.
Not quite zero, one or maybe two. It might be neither one nor two but
none or both, there may be a sort of quantum like thing going on. Will
this picture save me raving madly on?

<http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/justPics/guypost.png>

--
dorayme
Oct 15 '08 #85

P: n/a


Something is wrong with my configuration. There were *four*
blank lines between the head and the body. More later after
I investigate.

Guy Macon wrote:
>

dorayme wrote:
>>Why do your posts in my newsreader often/always start
with a blank space at the top?

A standard NNTP post has one blank line that seperates the
header from the body, which most newsreaders suppress.

I add a second blank line because I prefer

W wrote:
>>X wrote:
>>>Y wrote:

Z wrote:

and adding the single blank line makes most replies come out the
way I like rather than being like this:

W wrote:
>>X wrote:
>>>Y wrote:

Z wrote:

From your post, it appaers that you are seeing three blank
lines, not the one that I intended. That is not what I
wanted, and I may stop adding the extra line because of it.

I didn't add any extra line to the top of this post.
How many blank lines do you see at the top? Zero, I hope.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 15 '08 #86

P: n/a
Erwin Moller wrote:
Guy Macon schreef:
>Erwin Moller wrote:
>>Should I stop using STRICT then? I am not sure.

I think that you should stop using HTML 4.01 Strict and instead use
HTML 4.01 Transitional, which was made for folks like you
who disagree with the philosophy behind HTML 4.01 Strict. Note
that there is nothing wrong with you disagreeing; it is your
website and you get to decide how to build it. I don't agree with you,
but it is not my website.

Right now I am inclined to validate my pages in STRICT and ignore the
targets= errors.
Or alternatively: Validate them in STRICT without the target= and add it
later and pretend it is all OK then. ;-)
Not that I am condoning the popup, I really hate popups, and prefer to
let the user decide which way they want a link to open. However if your
MUST have a popup this is what I would do.

Make new pages STRICT and add your popups via an external javascript sheet.

I would give said links some styling to indicate the offending popup
behavior, like this popup class that serves 2 purposes. 1) a visual clue
to users, 2) a trappable attribute to attach handler.

a.popup {
background:transparent url(popup.gif) no-repeat scroll right center;
padding-right:12px;
}
<p>So your <a href="http://example.com" class="popup">link to pop up</a>
on your page...

Now the JavaScript, the nasty extra code forks are for, you guest it, to
accommodate PITA MSIE.

function popup(e){
var dest=this.href; //Grab the link's destination for popup
var attr="titlebar=yes,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes";
var newWind = window.open(dest,"popupwindow",attr);
newWind.focus();

if( e.preventDefault ) { //Cancel the link click
e.preventDefault();
}
else { //Oh yes, for IE it is different!!
e.returnValue = false;
}
}

function initPopups(){
var mylinks=document.getElementsByTagName('a');
// Attach handler for link of class 'popup' on page
for(var i=0; i<mylinks.length; i++){
if(mylinks[i].className=='popup'){
if(mylinks[i].addEventListener){
mylinks[i].addEventListener('click',popup,false);
}
else if(mylinks.attachEvent){ //For contrary MSIE
mylinks.attachEvent('onclick',popup);
}
}
}
}

if(window.addEventListener){
window.addEventListener('load',initPopups,false);
}
else if(window.attachEvent){ //MS IE support
window.attachEvent("onload",initPopups);
}
Now you will get your popup if user has JavaScript enabled, else it will
properly fall back to a regular link AND it will validate...no TARGET
attribute required.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Oct 15 '08 #87

P: n/a

Erwin Moller wrote:
>
Guy Macon schreef:
>All the reasons you list are reasons for having a link open in a
new window. None of them are reasons for having a link open a
new window *in HTML* instead of in JavaScript.

Then you didn't read through the whole thread, which is understandable,
I believe that I have read and understood the entire thread. I do not
believe that you have given a valid reason for reasons for wanting to
have a link open a new window in HTML instead of in JavaScript.
>since I did give a valid reason to do it in HTML.
I need that on some projects where my userbase consider opening a new
window themselfs highly complex and I am not allowed to demand
JavaScript (which would of course solve the whole mess I am complaining
about).

I know this is not a great reason, but I think it is reason
enough to include target in STRICT.
Saying "I am not allowed to demand JavaScript" does not change the
basic fact that there appears to be no valid reason for wanting to
open the new window using HTML instead of in JavaScript. It simply
changes "I want this but cannot explain why" to "I am following the
orders of someone who wants this but cannot explain why."
>But hey, YOU cannot help me with that of course. The STRICT doctype is
there, it doesn't include target=, end of discussion.
It is just that I think this was a bad decision.
There is only one difference between having the "open in a new window"
functionality in HTML instead of JavaScript. Putting it in HTML shoves
it down your users throats whether they like it or not. Putting it
in JavaScript allows your users to make their own choices. Neither you
or those who are ordering you to not require JavaScript have provided
any other reason.
The only reason
>that I can think of for you insisting that the open-in-new-window
functionality must be in HTML is that you want to force it upon
the user rather than having it be optional. If you have a better
reason, I would be most interested in hearing it.

I hope my above reason is enough.
It isn't. Look carefully at what you wrote. You failed to give any
actual reason. An actual reason would include some good thing that
would result from choosing one option or some bad thing that would
result from choosing the other option. The reasons you gave were:

[1]
"I need that on some projects where my userbase consider
opening a new window themselves highly complex"

Not a valid reason for wanting it in HTML instead of JavaScript.
Your userbase doesn't have to open the new window themselves if
you do it in JavaScript.

[2]
"and I am not allowed to demand JavaScript"

Not a valid reason for wanting it in HTML instead of JavaScript
unless you provide a valid reason why you are not allowed to
demand JavaScript.
>This, by the way, is why you get replies saying that you
want to force things on your users.

Yes, I noticed, I referred to it as a Pavlov response.
You can refer to it that way if you wish, but to me it looks
a lot more like a valid conclusion based on the arguments you
have posted. I have looked at every word you have posted, and
I can only come up with three possibilities.

[A] You (or possibly someone who is giving you orders) want to
open new windows in HTML instead of JavaScript for no reason
at all -- it is a purely emotional and non-rational desire.

[b] You (or possibly someone who is giving you orders) want to
open windows in HTML instead of JavaScript for some unknown
reason that you have not revealed in your posts.

[C] You (or possibly someone who is giving you orders) want to
open new windows in HTML instead of JavaScript because some
users turn off JavaScript and you don't want them to have a
choice as to whether to open new windows or to open the new
page in the existing window.

I cannot find any other reason in your posts.
>The basic idea is this; turn off CSS and the document is readable.
It doesn't have to be pretty, but it has to all be there. Yes,
,noitcerid txet eht esrever ,elpmaxe rof ,ot SSC esu nac uoy
(AKA "you can use CSS to, for example, reverse the text direction,")
but you aren't supposed to do what I did above, use reversing on
English text. It is there for right-to-left languages such as
Hebrew. If it had no such legitimate purpose, it would have been
removed from CSS. This, by the way, is why you get replies saying
that the reason target was removed was because of the potential
for abuse. That's incorrect. It was moved (not removed) because
there is no legitimate use for it in HTML, leaving only the possibility
of misuse.

Likewise, the basic idea is that you can turn off JavaScript and
the document is not only readable, but styled according to the
CSS stylesheet associated with that document. As was explained
above for CSS, you can use JavaScript to change content and
styling, but you shouldn't. Content should be determined by
HTML. Styling should be determined by CSS, The behavior of the
user agent user interface should be determined by scripting
(typically JavaScript).

Yes, nice in theory, but I am afraid many many webpages don't follow
that philosophy. I too have often to work with designers that want
control to the last pixel. I don't like that, even advise against it,
but that doesn't always help. :-/
Again, they are allowed to do that. They are even allowed to call
the result "HTML 4.01 Strict" if it validates. If, however, they
feel that attaining the above goal requires HTML markup that does
not validate, they are disagreeing with the basic philosophy behind
HTML 4.01 Strict and thus should not advertise their pages as being
HTML 4.01 Strict in the doctype. Again, they are allowed to disagree
and the W3C has given them several doctypes that they can use for
their purposes.
>The problem is often that a client saw a great looking new design for
their website, and want that exactly on the net. Then they throw the
design on my desk I am supposed to implement it exactly like that.
This often leads to sad rendering if you disable the CSS.
There is nothing wrong with sad rendering if you disable CSS.
The only requirement is that it be readable, not pretty.

There are two things that I advise every serious web author to do:

First, install the Lynx browser and test your pages on it. Second,
set up an aural browser (the kind that blind people use) and test
your site with the monitor turned off. Besides the fact that making
your website inaccessible to blind people is evil and possibly illegal
depending on where you live, doing this optimizes your site for your
most important visitor (who just happens to be blind, deaf, and to have
a severe cognitive disability) -- the Google search engine web crawler.



--
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Oct 15 '08 #88

P: n/a
"Petr Vileta \(fidokomik\)" <st****@practisoft.czwrote:
>By my opinion web is not about "documents" but about "contents". The
same stupid thesis is "make a film (movie) so that will be possible to
show it in black/white TV". Yes of course, few film masters know it,
but majority must use colors to make good film.
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
The majority are likely to make worse films if they use colour. The
argument is simple. The majority of films are crap. Crap in colour is
more revolting than crap in Black & White.
Actually, some "photography for new parents" books recommend that parents
photograph their kids in black and white, rather that in color. The jarring
color clashes between brightly colored toys, clothes, etc. go away, and the
photo of some perfect moment won't be marred by the fact that the kid is
wearing whatever happened to be clean, rather than something with
well-coordinated colors.

But back to Petr's point...

CSS 2.1 specifies 8 media types other than "screen". Browsing environments
for these media types may ignore your screen-oriented CSS.

Even among "screen" browsers, there is a huge variation in the needs and
preferences of web users, so there is a huge variation in the
configurations of their browsers. Some of those configurations will ignore
all or part of your CSS.

That is the nature of the WWW.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back."
Oct 15 '08 #89

P: n/a
Darin McGrew wrote:
But back to Petr's point...

CSS 2.1 specifies 8 media types other than "screen". Browsing
environments for these media types may ignore your screen-oriented
CSS.
Yes, but how many browsers have CSS 2.1 implemented? So do you can't ignore a
fact that more then 60% of installed browsers is Internet Explorer (with all its
built-in errors) :-)
--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail.
Send me your mail from another non-spammer site please.)
Please reply to <petr AT practisoft DOT cz>

Oct 16 '08 #90

P: n/a
Darin McGrew wrote:
>CSS 2.1 specifies 8 media types other than "screen". Browsing
environments for these media types may ignore your screen-oriented
CSS.
Petr Vileta \(fidokomik\) <st****@practisoft.czwrote:
Yes, but how many browsers have CSS 2.1 implemented? So do you can't ignore a
fact that more then 60% of installed browsers is Internet Explorer (with
all its
built-in errors) :-)
Sure. Many of your visitors will be using MSIE. Most will be using screen
browsers. Most will use your screen-oriented CSS.

But even MSIE allows the user to disable some of the presentation details
specified with document CSS. And some of your visitors will need to do so.
Modern browsers offer their users even more control.

Web sites work best when they are designed so their CSS is optional,
because ultimately, document CSS *is* optional.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"It said 'Insert disk #3', but only two will fit..."
Oct 16 '08 #91

P: n/a
Darin McGrew wrote:
Sure. Many of your visitors will be using MSIE. Most will be using
screen browsers. Most will use your screen-oriented CSS.

But even MSIE allows the user to disable some of the presentation
details specified with document CSS. And some of your visitors will
need to do so. Modern browsers offer their users even more control.

Web sites work best when they are designed so their CSS is optional,
because ultimately, document CSS *is* optional.
Yes. But Prince Hamlet said: "This is the question." :-)

The question sound: is web about text-based informations or is web some similar
to TV? By my opinion at this time web go from text-based information to be an
interactive TV. For more and more web publishers a design and format is more
important then included informations. It is sad but it is a fact :-)
--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail.
Send me your mail from another non-spammer site please.)
Please reply to <petr AT practisoft DOT cz>

Oct 17 '08 #92

P: n/a

Petr Vileta (fidokomik) wrote:
>But Prince Hamlet said: "This is the question." :-)

The question sound: is web about text-based informations or is web
some similar to TV? By my opinion at this time web go from text-based
information to be an interactive TV. For more and more web publishers
a design and format is more important then included informations.
It is sad but it is a fact :-)
See that newsgroups line up there?
The one that says "comp.infosystems.www.authoring.HTML"?
^^^^
The World Wide Web (WWW) is larger than the subset of the World
Wide Web that uses Hypertext Markup language (HTML), just like
the Internet is larger than the subset of the Internet that is
the World Wide Web.

Web publishers have available to them technologies that will let
them control "design and format"; Flash and PFD are examples of that.

Web publishers who use HTML do *not* have that control. They may
think they do, and they may be able to put something together that
looks the way they want it to look using specific versions of some
of the more popular browsers, but it is all a mirage. The look
will not stay the same when new browsers or new versions of old
browsers are rolled out, and the look will not stay the same when
the users change configuration. Try configuring Internet Explorer
to ignore JavaScript, CSS and to use the user's text size, color,
and font and see how these carefully-optimized-for-IE pages look.

There are blind users who us aural browsers and who do not turn
on their monitors. There are vision-impaired users who look at
huge text sizes. There are users who navigate by puffing into
a tube instead of moving a mouse. There are users with cellphone
screens not much bigger than a postage stamp. There are users
with three giant high resolution monitors. And there are search
engine webcrawlers that see a webpage completely differently than
humans do. HTML is designed so that, unless a stupid designer
screws things up trying to control every pixel, all of the above
users can access the same content. This is a Very Good Thing.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 17 '08 #93

92 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.