By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,723 Members | 1,662 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,723 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

What to use intead of taget_new in XHTML/Strict

P: n/a
It seems that opening a link in a new window isn't considered to be good
practise in xhtml 1.1. The w3c validation service does not accept it and I
have to downgrade those pages to xhtml/transitional.

Does anyone know what the proper solution would be to open a link in a new
window if I want all my pages to comply with the xhtml/strict level?

I can see the thought behind, I think, but I would argue that there are
legitimate reasons for giving full control to the site I am linking to,
while my (unexperienced) visitor still doesn't loose track of my site.

I've searched the net for an answer/diskussion about this but haven't found
anything. I would really appreciate some input.

/chris
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
23 Replies


P: n/a
ch************@hemsidan.info (chris Jangelov) writes:
It seems that opening a link in a new window isn't considered to be good
practise in xhtml 1.1. The w3c validation service does not accept it and I
have to downgrade those pages to xhtml/transitional.
XHTML 1.1? Do you not have a significant number of Internet Explorer
users (it doesn't work in IE6 or below). Unless you have a very good
reason for using XHTML, stick to HTML 4.01.
Does anyone know what the proper solution would be to open a link in a new
window if I want all my pages to comply with the xhtml/strict level?
You can't have both - you can either open in a new window, or use strict.
I can see the thought behind, I think, but I would argue that there are
legitimate reasons for giving full control to the site I am linking to,
while my (unexperienced) visitor still doesn't loose track of my site.
There are, occasionally, good reasons to open a new window for a
user. This, however, is almost never one of them. Your inexperienced
visitor is far more likely to find their way back (should they want
to!) if you don't break their back button by opening a new window.
I've searched the net for an answer/diskussion about this but haven't found
anything. I would really appreciate some input.


Search Google Groups on this group. Many threads about this.

--
Chris
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
chris Jangelov wrote:
It seems that opening a link in a new window isn't considered to be good
practise in xhtml 1.1. The w3c validation service does not accept it and I
have to downgrade those pages to xhtml/transitional.

Does anyone know what the proper solution would be to open a link in a new
window if I want all my pages to comply with the xhtml/strict level?
If, as you say, it is bad practice in xhtml 1.1, then you probably
shouldn't do it in xhtml 1.1.

I can see the thought behind, I think, but I would argue that there are
legitimate reasons for giving full control to the site I am linking to,
while my (unexperienced) visitor still doesn't loose track of my site.


In that case use a Doctype that provides the feature you think you need.
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
"chris Jangelov" <ch************@hemsidan.info> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
It seems that opening a link in a new window isn't considered to be good
practise in xhtml 1.1.
Actually it's not considered to be good practice _on_the_Web_. It'
just that later versions of HTML and XHTML enforce that.
Does anyone know what the proper solution would be to open a link in a new
window if I want all my pages to comply with the xhtml/strict level?
You're asking what is the proper solution to have a red sofa that is
blue. Your requirements are mutually contradictory. Either give up
the idea of standard (X)HTML, or give up the idea of monkeying with
the user's desktop.
I can see the thought behind, I think, but I would argue that there are
legitimate reasons for giving full control to the site I am linking to,
while my (unexperienced) visitor still doesn't loose track of my site.


Translation: "My site is so important that stupid visitors who think
they want to go somewhere else must have that made difficult for
them." You're probably not thinking that, but that's the practical
effect of what you're saying.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:53:50 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Translation: "My site is so important that stupid visitors who think
they want to go somewhere else must have that made difficult for
them." You're probably not thinking that, but that's the practical
effect of what you're saying.

What's more, many visitors won't even realize it's a new window, and when
they try to use the Back button to return to your site, it won't work.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
In article <42**************************@posting.google.com >,
ch************@hemsidan.info (chris Jangelov) wrote:
I can see the thought behind, I think, but I would argue that there are
legitimate reasons for giving full control to the site I am linking to,
while my (unexperienced) visitor still doesn't loose track of my site.


They don't. They have the back button if they need it, the number one
button used by everyone. Besides, they decide to leave; howcome you
think you can keep them on your site?

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
In <42**************************@posting.google.com >, on 07/19/2004
at 06:41 AM, ch************@hemsidan.info (chris Jangelov) said:
Does anyone know what the proper solution would be to open a link in
a new window if I want all my pages to comply with the xhtml/strict
level?
I'm not sure that there is a proper way to do it, because I'm not
convinced that it is a proper thing to do.
I can see the thought behind, I think, but I would argue that there
are legitimate reasons for giving full control to the site I am
linking to, while my (unexperienced) visitor still doesn't loose
track of my site.


You may run into browser that are configured to refuse to do what you
want. It is the user that should have full control, not the site that
you are linking to.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to sp******@library.lspace.org

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
ch************@hemsidan.info (chris Jangelov) wrote in message news:<42**************************@posting.google. com>...
Does anyone know what the proper solution would be


Use XHTML 1.0 Transitional.

(Why use Strict ? WHy use 1.1 ?)
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Andy Dingley wrote:
ch************@hemsidan.info (chris Jangelov) wrote in message news:<42**************************@posting.google. com>...
Does anyone know what the proper solution would be
Use XHTML 1.0 Transitional.


That might be the answer to "Doctor, it hurts when I do this - how can
I continue doing it without it hurting too much?"
(Why use Strict ? WHy use 1.1 ?)


Good questions, indeed.

But why try to open new windows? If the user knows how to handle new
windows, they can do that for themselves. If they don't know, then
it's liable to confuse them (as well as being a WAI violation, if I'm
not mistaken).

Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>...
(as well as being a WAI violation, if I'm not mistaken).


Although there are plenty of people who think the WAI should be
violated with a pointy stick.
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Andy Dingley wrote:
ch************@hemsidan.info (chris Jangelov) wrote in message news:<42**************************@posting.google. com>...
Does anyone know what the proper solution would be


Use XHTML 1.0 Transitional.


That might be the answer to "Doctor, it hurts when I do this - how can
I continue doing it without it hurting too much?"
(Why use Strict ? WHy use 1.1 ?)


Good questions, indeed.

But why try to open new windows? If the user knows how to handle new
windows, they can do that for themselves. If they don't know, then
it's liable to confuse them (as well as being a WAI violation, if I'm
not mistaken).


Thank you all for your input.

I think I'll stick to the advice "use XHTML Transitional". This
complies with a standard, which I like, and still fulfill my needs.

I want to try 3 arguments for further discussion:

1: I am remaking a site about nordic ballads and we want to be a
center/ a hub
for the subject. That would mean linking to resouces wherever they are
rather than reinventing the wheel. A user behaviour cold be to browse
different sites from linklist at our site, and then they would like to
keep
our site as the steady bottom for that session.

2: I also think that hyperlinking to a photo as an illustration to a
text
is a reasonable approach. If we were to put all images in the document
that
would be an unnecessary bandwidth comsumer for many modem surfers.

3: One could also say that the problem arises because many browsers
aren't
tabbed. If one were to look att it as different windows/aspects of a
surf
trail, rather than new browser windows, it might just mean that the
strict
standard is a bit too narrow.

(I kind of like the last one :-)

/chris
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
On 20 Jul 2004 12:03:41 -0700, ch************@hemsidan.info (chris
Jangelov) wrote:

[...]
1: I am remaking a site about nordic ballads and we want to be a
center/a hub for the subject. That would mean linking to resouces
wherever they are rather than reinventing the wheel.
A user behaviour cold be to browse different sites from linklist
at our site, and then they would like to keep our site as the
steady bottom for that session.
A simple case for the users "back" mechanism, whatever that might be.
Surely any www user knows how to get back from where s/he started, _if_
s/he is interested to go back in the first place.
2: I also think that hyperlinking to a photo as an illustration to
a text is a reasonable approach. If we were to put all images in the
document that would be an unnecessary bandwidth comsumer for many
modem surfers.
Huh? what's wrong with a simple "Anchor" element when you need it?
3: One could also say that the problem arises because many browsers
aren't tabbed.
No; if that is a "problem" in your view, you created it.
If one were to look att it as different windows/aspects of a
surf trail, rather than new browser windows, it might just mean that
the strict standard is a bit too narrow.
You are off base. The www is an area that lives inside and as a part of
internet. Internet is at large a "client/server" system where clients
are supposed to have full control over what they request as a service
from servers.

Forget this "I want to control users behavior" scenario because there is
in reailty _nothing_ you can do in what you serve that can "force" any
user out there to dance to your pipe.
(I kind of like the last one :-)


Maybe so; it's a faulty attitude to the i-net never the less.

--
Rex
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
In <42*************************@posting.google.com> , on 07/20/2004
at 12:03 PM, ch************@hemsidan.info (chris Jangelov) said:
I want to try 3 arguments for further discussion:


Frames.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to sp******@library.lspace.org

Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Jakob Nielsen pointed out the fundamental problems with opening new windows
5 years ago. See item #2 at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html

The fundamental problems haven't changed in that time.

chris Jangelov <ch************@hemsidan.info> wrote:
1: I am remaking a site about nordic ballads and we want to be a
center/ a hub
for the subject. That would mean linking to resouces wherever they are
rather than reinventing the wheel. A user behaviour cold be to browse
different sites from linklist at our site, and then they would like to
keep
our site as the steady bottom for that session.
The "hub sites" that I use every day manage to do this without opening new
browser windows. If I want a new browser window, then I know how to open it
myself.

Users who don't know how to use basic functions of their browsers will only
be confused when various pages imitate those functions in different ways.
And yes, I've seen users who don't know how to use windows effectively get
confused when a browser opens one for them. "Why doesn't the back button
work?" is just one symptom, and ironically, it's the site that opened a new
window that they can't return to using the back button.
2: I also think that hyperlinking to a photo as an illustration to a
text
is a reasonable approach. If we were to put all images in the document
that
would be an unnecessary bandwidth comsumer for many modem surfers.
Thumbnails work well. Or you can use text links. Regardless, if I want to
open a new window, I can. If I want to follow the link and then use the
back button, I can. It's better to let users work the way they want to
work, than to force them to work in a way they are unfamiliar with or
uncomfortable with.
3: One could also say that the problem arises because many browsers
aren't
tabbed. If one were to look att it as different windows/aspects of a
surf
trail, rather than new browser windows, it might just mean that the
strict
standard is a bit too narrow.


That still doesn't justify taking away the user's choice over whether to
open a new link in the current window or in a new window. No matter how the
browser represents new windows (e.g., there are non-visual browsers that
support the concept of multiple "windows"), the creation of those new
windows should remain under the user's control.

When browsers include user-configuration settings that prevent documents
from controlling certain behaviors, it's probably a good idea for authors
to avoid trying to control those behaviors. Opera has 3 different settings
to subvert document-controlled new windows. I that understand Gecko- and
KHTML-based browsers offer similar settings. Who knows--the next version of
MSIE might even catch up.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"The handwriting on the wall may mean you need a notepad by the phone."
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
On 20 Jul 2004 12:03:41 -0700, ch************@hemsidan.info (chris
Jangelov) wrote:
1: I am remaking a site about nordic ballads and we want to be a
center/ a hub
for the subject. That would mean linking to resouces wherever they are
rather than reinventing the wheel. A user behaviour cold be to browse
different sites from linklist at our site, and then they would like to
keep
our site as the steady bottom for that session.
When I'm browsing and I encounter such a jump-off site, I generally
middle-mouse-click the links which, in my browser, opens the links in
a new tab. However, sometimes I use the jump-off site to find a
particular site I forgot the URL for, so I left-click the link because
I really don't care much for anything else on the jump-off site at
that point. If the site *still* opens in a new window, I'm going to
get very cross.

People who care about such things already know how to either open
links in new windows/tabs or use the back button. The few people who
don't know about one of these things will learn soon enough, and if
anything your attempt to force them to keep your site open will
probably make that learning process even longer and more frustrating
as the links on your site will act differently to the user has seen
links act on other sites.
3: One could also say that the problem arises because many browsers
aren't tabbed.


Due to (IMHO, misplaced) backward-compatibility concerns even tabbed
browsers seem to open target="_blank" links in new windows (rather
than tabs) by default. This is quite frustrating, since the user must
then manually re-absorb this unwanted extra window back into the
original window where it belongs.

--------

My main argument against using target="_blank" (among many others) is
this:

If you don't specify the target, all browsers which support such
things give the user a choice between new window or current window
and, in newer browsers, new tab as well.

If you specify target="_blank", you eliminate the "open in current
window" option, so the user now has a choice between "open in a new
window that I don't want", "open in a new window that I do want" and
maybe "open in a new tab", although the last option might also be
broken by your misplaced attempt to boss the user around.

Have a good think about this and hopefully you'll realise that what
you are trying to do is a bad idea and was deprecated for a reason.

Best regards,
-Claire
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Claire Tucker wrote:
Due to (IMHO, misplaced) backward-compatibility concerns even
tabbed browsers seem to open target="_blank" links in new windows
(rather than tabs) by default.


Mozilla does this. I don't know about Safari. But Opera doesn't. In
fact, you can't have a new window in Opera as far as I can tell. It's
a case where new window (whether by user or author) = new tab.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:21:53 -0400, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Claire Tucker wrote:
Due to (IMHO, misplaced) backward-compatibility concerns even
tabbed browsers seem to open target="_blank" links in new windows
(rather than tabs) by default.


Mozilla does this. I don't know about Safari. But Opera doesn't. In
fact, you can't have a new window in Opera as far as I can tell. It's
a case where new window (whether by user or author) = new tab.


In the old version of Opera I use I can choose between two modes. The
first, which I use, is a single MDI interface which looks a bit like
tabbed browsing but is really just multiple initially-maximised
windows and a widget which emulates the Windows taskbar to switch
between them.

The other mode is more like Firefox, where multiple top-level windows
can be created and within them several "pages", which are essentially
tabs.

In the first of these, *all* windows are children of the master Opera
window so opening windows outside of it is impossible, whether it be
done by an irritating page author or by the user. Of course, this
makes little "pop-up windows" act quite strangely, since they expect
to open top-level but instead find themselves in a little MDI box.

The latter mode works more like Firefox browsing.

I understand newer versions of Opera collapse these two modes into
one, and the distinction is between opening new "windows" versus
opening new "pages". I can't comment on what kind of new browser it
opens in response to target="_blank".

I prefer the old way, which is one of the (many) reasons why I'm still
using such an ancient version of Opera.

-Claire
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Claire Tucker" <fa**@invalid.invalid> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Due to (IMHO, misplaced) backward-compatibility concerns even tabbed
browsers seem to open target="_blank" links in new windows (rather
than tabs) by default. This is quite frustrating, since the user must
then manually re-absorb this unwanted extra window back into the
original window where it belongs.


How can a user do this? About all I can think of is to copy the URL
of the unwanted new window, go back to the first window, open a new
tab, paste the URL, and hit Enter to let the browser retrieve it.
But that often doesn't work, if the server has done any URL
rewriting. This seems pretty common with e.g. forms submission.

Do you know of any reliable way to re-absorb a window in say
Mozilla, without sending a new request to the server?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> a écrit dans le message de
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net
Do you know of any reliable way to re-absorb a window in say
Mozilla, without sending a new request to the server?


Use a proper extension that does open a tab instead of a new window. Tab
Browser extension (works for Mozilla and Firefox) has such an option.
See http://white.sakura.ne.jp/~piro/xul/...nsions.html.en

Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
Do you know of any reliable way to re-absorb a window in say
Mozilla, without sending a new request to the server?


No, but you can disable target="_new" in the first place. Add this to
user.js (find that file in your profile).
// disable new windows imposed by author
// http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105547
user_pref("browser.block.target_new_window", true);

It wfm. Forces such links to open in same window.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
"Claire Tucker" <fa**@invalid.invalid> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Due to (IMHO, misplaced) backward-compatibility concerns even tabbed
browsers seem to open target="_blank" links in new windows (rather
than tabs) by default. This is quite frustrating, since the user must
then manually re-absorb this unwanted extra window back into the
original window where it belongs.

How can a user do this? About all I can think of is to copy the URL
of the unwanted new window, go back to the first window, open a new
tab, paste the URL, and hit Enter to let the browser retrieve it.
But that often doesn't work, if the server has done any URL
rewriting. This seems pretty common with e.g. forms submission.

Do you know of any reliable way to re-absorb a window in say
Mozilla, without sending a new request to the server?


Mozilla Firefox: The easy way out is to write about:config in the
address bar, press Enter, and write target in the Filter field and press
Enter again. Right click browser.block.target_new_window, choose Modify
and change value to true.
--
Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen
http://home.online.no/~ingerfaj/
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Read my article:

Don't force new windows on users
http://www.smackthemouse.com/20030831

It also has the solution to your problem when a new window is
considered necessary in XHTML 1.1.

Best regards,
Jesper Tverskov
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Stan Brown wrote:
Do you know of any reliable way to re-absorb a window in say
Mozilla, without sending a new request to the server?


No, but you can disable target="_new" in the first place. Add this to
user.js (find that file in your profile).

// disable new windows imposed by author
// http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105547
user_pref("browser.block.target_new_window", true);

It wfm. Forces such links to open in same window.


Thanks. Actually I use target="_blank" in some of my local files
that I access with the browser. But I've got PrefBar loaded, so I
suppose I could make that a one-click toggle.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
je*************@mail.tele.dk (Jesper Tverskov) wrote in message news:<c4**************************@posting.google. com>...
Read my article:

Don't force new windows on users
http://www.smackthemouse.com/20030831

It also has the solution to your problem when a new window is
considered necessary in XHTML 1.1.

Best regards,
Jesper Tverskov


Thank you, Jesper. This i most well put and clear in the arguments. I
recommend all to read it.

/chris
Jul 20 '05 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.