469,609 Members | 2,206 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,609 developers. It's quick & easy.

Is there a "target=_blank" alternative in css ?

Hi group

I am in the process of developing a website in XHTML Strict and CSS. Is
there a way to open a link in a new window without the use of frames or
Javascript or something ? I didn't find a way ...
TIA
Dimitri.
Jul 20 '05 #1
43 42302
In post <kW******************@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>
Dimitri Debruyne said...
I am in the process of developing a website in XHTML Strict and CSS. Is
there a way to open a link in a new window without the use of frames or
Javascript or something ?


no. how about letting the visitor determine if they want a new window
or not?

--
brucie a. blackford. 26/July/2003 05:39:35 pm kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
Jul 20 '05 #2
On Sat, Jul 26, David Dorward inscribed on the eternal scroll:
That depends on the browser, typically right clicking on a link and picking
"Open in New Window" or similar works.


Mouse gestures? Built-in to Opera, or
http://optimoz.mozdev.org/gestures/index.html for Mozilla.

Jul 20 '05 #3
> I am in the process of developing a website in XHTML Strict and CSS. Is
there a way to open a link in a new window without the use of frames or
Javascript or something ? I didn't find a way ...


Its not possible in strict xhtml and css - it was removed for a reason, to
give users the control over their own computers rather than you popping
windows up here there and everywhere. Of course a lot of sites do have
legitimate uses for popups, but its now considered best practice to give
them the choice. If not, you'll have to use javascript or something else.

David
Jul 20 '05 #4
> I am in the process of developing a website in XHTML Strict and CSS. Is
there a way to open a link in a new window without the use of frames or
Javascript or something ? I didn't find a way ...


Its not possible in strict xhtml and css - it was removed for a reason, to
give users the control over their own computers rather than you popping
windows up here there and everywhere. Of course a lot of sites do have
legitimate uses for popups, but its now considered best practice to give
them the choice. If not, you'll have to use javascript or something else.

David
Jul 20 '05 #5
Hi

Thanks to all for replying so far ...

The main reason I went for Strict XHTML is because I think this would be the
safest bet for avoiding compatibility issues in the future. Also, I like the
"clean" nature of the xhtml and css syntax.

The site I'm developing however will include quite some thumbnails and i
thought it would be nice if you just clicked the thumbnail and the picture
appeared in a separate browser window that one would like to close after
viewing anyway. Also links explaining a certain abbreviation or giving some
more details about a certain concept, word, expression seem to be opened
preferably in a separate window which can be easily closed after reading
without breaking the main text. I don't think this is annoying ... certainly
not if it is stated that a new window will be opened. Anyway, this does not
seem to matter as there is no solution to it, at least not without the use
of javascript, which I would prefer to avoid ...

Is it true that about 50% of the (experienced?) web users has Javascript
disabled ? I read this somewhere ...

Regards

Dimitri

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@mail.cern.ch> schreef in bericht
news:Pi******************************@lxplus078.ce rn.ch...
On Sat, Jul 26, Dimitri Debruyne inscribed on the eternal scroll:
I am in the process of developing a website in XHTML Strict and CSS.


The question would have to be just why you chose Strict without
apparently understanding what it implies...
Is there a way to open a link in a new window without the use of
frames or Javascript or something ? I didn't find a way ...


If you had chosen Strict for a good reason, then you wouldn't want to
do that. As you may be able to deduce from the other answers that you
got on this thread.

all the best

Jul 20 '05 #6
In article <4B******************@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Dimitri Debruyne" <di********@pandora.be> wrote:
The main reason I went for Strict XHTML is because I think this would be the
safest bet for avoiding compatibility issues in the future. Also, I like the
Strict - yes. XHTML - OK, harmless.

But you've missed Alan's point. Having made your (sound) decision, you
should stick to it and not revert to precisely the problematic practices
your decision helps you to avoid.
at least not without the use
of javascript, which I would prefer to avoid ...
I reserve judgement on your reason for opening a new window. Insofar
as it is a valid reason, it is also a good use of javascript.
Is it true that about 50% of the (experienced?) web users has Javascript
disabled ? I read this somewhere ...


I have no idea about proportions. I sometimes have it enabled.
Regardless of proportions, the fundamental principle of javascript use
is to ensure the fallback for non-JS users also works. In this case,
the fallback is obviously a plain old href to the big image.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
Jul 20 '05 #7
In article <4B******************@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>,
"Dimitri Debruyne" <di********@pandora.be> wrote:
Is it true that about 50% of the (experienced?) web users has Javascript
disabled ? I read this somewhere ...


I sure believe that 50% of the exerienced web users have at posed at
least some form of limitation to javascript execution. For instance,
popup blocking, prevention of messing up the status bar, things like
that.

You should build with respect to graceful degredation, so things will
"work" without JS as well. Automatically opening new windows is
something people can miss; the link however should work.

A much better approach is to *indicate* that a link points to somewhere
outside the website. For instance by a small icon. Visitors can then
easily decide what to do.[*]

I tend to believe that this 'need' for new windows only exists because
some users are confused because of the surprise that the website they
were at is suddenly 'gone'. Take away the surprise is then the mission,
nottrying to take over the way they surf. No offense, of course.
[*] browsers already indicate what links do. in the status bar is
displayed on rollover where the link leads to. one can easily
distinguish when it is beyond the site's domain.

--
Kris
kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
Jul 20 '05 #8
"Dimitri Debruyne" <di********@pandora.be> wrote in
news:kW******************@afrodite.telenet-ops.be:
Hi group

I am in the process of developing a website in XHTML Strict and CSS. Is
there a way to open a link in a new window without the use of frames or
Javascript or something ? I didn't find a way ...


Give the users a choice:
- use server-side scripting to initially generate the page
with XHTML/CSS and 'regular' links
- have an option to, for the page, or for the site, enable
'popup windows', by regenerating the page to include
whatever method(s) you select for your popups

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, the Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org dpatton at confluence dot org
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
Vancouver/Whistler - host of the 2010 Winter Olympics
Jul 20 '05 #9
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:44:32 GMT, "Dimitri Debruyne"
<di********@pandora.be> wrote:
The site I'm developing however will include quite some thumbnails and i
thought it would be nice if you just clicked the thumbnail and the picture
appeared in a separate browser window that one would like to close after
viewing anyway.


Not without JS. But of course you can just link to the image file, and
it'll open in a separate window. The user will have to hit the back
button, rather than close the window. I think many users would prefer
this, especially as even those who haven't disabled JS sometimes use
pop-up blockers.

Ian
--
http://www.aspipes.org/
http://www.bookstacks.org/
Jul 20 '05 #10
In article <9n********************************@4ax.com>,
Ian Rastall <id*******@earthlink.net> wrote:
The site I'm developing however will include quite some thumbnails and i
thought it would be nice if you just clicked the thumbnail and the picture
appeared in a separate browser window that one would like to close after
viewing anyway.


Not without JS. But of course you can just link to the image file, and
it'll open in a separate window. The user will have to hit the back
button, rather than close the window. I think many users would prefer
this, especially as even those who haven't disabled JS sometimes use
pop-up blockers.


Good popup blockers distinguish between requested and non-requested
popups. That doesn't make authoring popups legit, though.

--
Kris
kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
Jul 20 '05 #11
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:00:58 +0200, Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote:
In article <9n********************************@4ax.com>,
Ian Rastall <id*******@earthlink.net> wrote:

Not without JS. But of course you can just link to the image file, and
it'll open in a separate window. The user will have to hit the back
button, rather than close the window. I think many users would prefer
this, especially as even those who haven't disabled JS sometimes use
pop-up blockers.


Good popup blockers distinguish between requested and non-requested
popups. That doesn't make authoring popups legit, though.


Okay, it's late. My eyes are blurring over. Maybe I'm missing what
you're saying, but I suggested that he not use a pop-up, but instead
do the following:

<p><a href="bigpyramid.jpg"><img src="pyramidthumb.jpg" width="100"
height="150" alt="Click here for full-size version" /></a></p>

In other words, clicking on the thumbnail opens a new browser window
with the full image in it. It doesn't use any kind of JS.

Are you saying that pop-up blockers will block that, too? Didn't know
that.

Ian
--
http://www.aspipes.org/
http://www.bookstacks.org/
Jul 20 '05 #12
Ian Rastall <id*******@earthlink.net> wrote:
<p><a href="bigpyramid.jpg"><img src="pyramidthumb.jpg" width="100"
height="150" alt="Click here for full-size version" /></a></p>

In other words, clicking on the thumbnail opens a new browser window
with the full image in it.


It won't open a new window. It will open the image in the current
window.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #13
In article <4v********************************@4ax.com>,
Ian Rastall <id*******@earthlink.net> wrote:
Not without JS. But of course you can just link to the image file, and
it'll open in a separate window. The user will have to hit the back
button, rather than close the window. I think many users would prefer
this, especially as even those who haven't disabled JS sometimes use
pop-up blockers.


Good popup blockers distinguish between requested and non-requested
popups. That doesn't make authoring popups legit, though.


Okay, it's late. My eyes are blurring over. Maybe I'm missing what
you're saying, but I suggested that he not use a pop-up, but instead
do the following:

<p><a href="bigpyramid.jpg"><img src="pyramidthumb.jpg" width="100"
height="150" alt="Click here for full-size version" /></a></p>

In other words, clicking on the thumbnail opens a new browser window
with the full image in it. It doesn't use any kind of JS.

Are you saying that pop-up blockers will block that, too? Didn't know
that.


No, the opposite. Good popup blockers will leave that one through. I
think it is indeed late for you. I hope not too late..? :)

--
Kris
kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
Jul 20 '05 #14
Ian Rastall <id*******@earthlink.net> writes:
Okay, it's late. My eyes are blurring over. Maybe I'm missing what
you're saying, but I suggested that he not use a pop-up, but instead
do the following:

<p><a href="bigpyramid.jpg"><img src="pyramidthumb.jpg" width="100"
height="150" alt="Click here for full-size version" /></a></p>


You do mean

<p><a title="Full-size image" href="bigpyramid.jpg"><img
src="pyramidthumb.jpg" width="100" height="150" alt="The pyramid"
/></a></p>

don't you. That's not an appropriate alt attribute in yours, plus
'click here' doesn't make any sense a lot of the time (*especially* at
times when an alt attribute is most likely to be used)

--
Chris
Jul 20 '05 #15
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:57:20 +0100, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
Ian Rastall <id*******@earthlink.net> wrote:
<p><a href="bigpyramid.jpg"><img src="pyramidthumb.jpg" width="100"
height="150" alt="Click here for full-size version" /></a></p>

In other words, clicking on the thumbnail opens a new browser window
with the full image in it.


It won't open a new window. It will open the image in the current
window.


Right ... sorry. :-) That's what I meant. <wiping eyes blearily>

Ian
--
http://www.aspipes.org/
http://www.bookstacks.org/
Jul 20 '05 #16
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:41:38 +0200, Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote:
I think it is indeed late for you. I hope not too late..? :)


Too late for me? Holy crap, but that's a depressing thought. I prefer
to think that I'm learning new things every day!

Ian
--
http://www.aspipes.org/
http://www.bookstacks.org/
Jul 20 '05 #17
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:36:43 GMT, ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

But target is all about the view of a document, not about the data, it
certainly shouldn't be in HTML, it should be only in a final form
language.

Jim.


Extending that attitude, a link (anchor) is about the relationship
between documents, not about the data, and does not belong in HTML
(ah, welcome to XML, please wait while we rebuild the WWW).

Bob
Jul 20 '05 #18
"Dimitri Debruyne" <di********@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:4B******************@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...

Is it true that about 50% of the (experienced?) web users has Javascript disabled ? I read this somewhere ...


Try 5% instead (five percent). Almost everyone has JS support enabled.
Even most of the "experienced" website users have it enabled for
legitimate reasons, not the least of which is accessibility in some
cases (bilingual sites often use JS to hide/unhide DIVs with alternate
content in a second language).

Although most sites have ways of accommodating non-JS users (providing
alternate content), it rarely ever is presented "as good" as the normal
content. Sometimes it's just darn hard to do stuff without JS. A major
example is switching stylesheets in IE - really easy with JS (thanks to
an excellent article at AListApart), but impossible without it. If
you're developing sites with alternate stylesheets, you already know
that 90% of web users (no one argues that MSIE still holds 90% of
browser market share) *need* JS enabled in order to switch stylesheets.

The other 10% (non-IE) users might be more "experienced" and about half
of them might have JS disabled, which leaves your percentage at 5%. Of
course, with capable browsers such as Opera that offer built-in pop-up
blocking, the legitimate reasons to disable JavaScript dwindle. One
notable reason might be security, although that's a stretch in most
cases. Those that disable JS just to block pop-ups are a little
shortsighted IMHO, and missing some really good legitimate content out
there. Of course there are some browsers that don't support it by
design (Lynx, etc.), but honestly not very many people use these.

As has already been pointed out, it's always up to the user to decide if
they want to disable support for certain things that you might use on
your site (some users override all author stylesheets and use their
own!), so don't ever expect your site to always look the same on all
computers. The main fact here, however, is that many sites rely on some
degree of JS support for vital (albeit non-essential) functions.
Despite any major 'enhancements' your site might have, a user should be
able to at least use (i.e., limp along) your site without JS. This
means don't use "onClick" links, etc. But it doesn't mean that you
should avoid it all together. On the contrary, well-planned use of
JavaScript can be very rewarding to the user.

-- Richard
Jul 20 '05 #19

"'nuther Bob" <ye********************@noplacereally.com> wrote in
message news:gi********************************@4ax.com...

But target is all about the view of a document, not about the data, itcertainly shouldn't be in HTML, it should be only in a final form
language.

Jim.


Extending that attitude, a link (anchor) is about the relationship
between documents, not about the data, and does not belong in HTML
(ah, welcome to XML, please wait while we rebuild the WWW).


That's hilarious! Gotta love double standards. =)

-- Richard
Jul 20 '05 #20
"Richard Barnet" <ne**@richard-NOSPAM-barnet.com> writes:
an excellent article at AListApart), but impossible without it. If
you're developing sites with alternate stylesheets, you already know
that 90% of web users (no one argues that MSIE still holds 90% of
browser market share) *need* JS enabled in order to switch stylesheets.
I'd argue that it wasn't 90%. Or at least that it can vary heavily
with site between 50% and 95% based on various log file analyses I've
seen.

http://j3e.de/statistics_lie.html for other IE-inflating effects.

Also bear in mind that something like a screen reader for IE or IBM
Home Page Reader will show up as IE in any logfile, since that's what
it uses to download the content.

And there are alternative ways to do CSS switching in IE - server-side
scripting, for example. See http://csszengarden.com/ for this
alternative method.
Despite any major 'enhancements' your site might have, a user should be
able to at least use (i.e., limp along) your site without JS. This
means don't use "onClick" links, etc. But it doesn't mean that you
should avoid it all together. On the contrary, well-planned use of
JavaScript can be very rewarding to the user.


Agreed. It's poorly-written and/or unnecessary Javascript that causes
the problems.

--
Chris
Jul 20 '05 #21
Le 28/07/2003 18:27, Jim Dabell a écrit :
CERT doesn't seem to think so, and I'm inclined to agree with them. There
have been an amazing number of Javascript related vulnerabilities in many
browsers, and I see no reason to expect them to dry up any time soon.


There has been an amazing number of *active scripting* related
vulneabilities, most of them VBscript or Jscript vulnerabilities, not
Javascript. I don't remember when was the last real javascript
vulnerability. The problem in IE is that you can't deactivate VBscript
without deactivating all scripting.

Pascal
--
FAQ Mozilla/Netscape 7 en français : http://pascal.chevrel.free.fr/
Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object

Jul 20 '05 #22
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:53:40 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<ye********************@noplacereally.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:36:43 GMT, ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

But target is all about the view of a document, not about the data, it
certainly shouldn't be in HTML, it should be only in a final form
language.

Jim.


Extending that attitude, a link (anchor) is about the relationship
between documents, not about the data, and does not belong in HTML
(ah, welcome to XML, please wait while we rebuild the WWW).


Ah you've noticed the xlink namespace then...

However a link is information, how a link should be presented is not.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #23
On Mon, Jul 28, Richard Barnet inscribed on the eternal scroll:
Is it true that about 50% of the (experienced?) web users has
Javascript disabled ? I read this somewhere ...
Try 5% instead (five percent).


I've seen any number of estimates, such as 30%, 10%, but rarely as low
as five percent. Anyway, a page that's properly designed for the WWW
doesn't need knowledge of an exact figure, since it won't use JS for
core function, only for optional conveniences/extras.
Almost everyone has JS support enabled.
Now you're just whistling in the dark. Don't forget that some
important folk (company buyers and such) are protected from the raw
WWW by various security measures - I'm told that some major
corporations filter out scripting so that it can't harm the individual
users even if they _do_ manage to enable it in their browsers.
Even most of the "experienced" website users have it enabled for
legitimate reasons,
By all means: the few JS-based web applications sites that I trust, I
have entered into IE's exception list, for example, while the rest get
scripting blocked in the usual way. (That's on the minority of
occasions when I'm actually using IE, rather than my usual choice
nowadays, Mozilla).
not the least of which is accessibility in some
cases (bilingual sites often use JS to hide/unhide DIVs with alternate
content in a second language).
That is a bizarre example, the like of which I've never met (or if I
_have_, then the fallback behaviour was _so_ graceful that I never
became aware of the missing function). I've seen plenty of
not-invented-here ways of doing multi-language sites which are
creatively trying to avoid the web's own built-in mechanisms, for sure
- but never saw that one. On the other hand, I've seen far too many
nasty tricks (up to and including attempts to seriously compromise
security[1]) to convince me that random web sites best not get given
the chance.
Although most sites have ways of accommodating non-JS users (providing
alternate content), it rarely ever is presented "as good" as the normal
content.
My diagnosis is you're still whistling in the dark...
Sometimes it's just darn hard to do stuff without JS.
Now we're getting a bit closer.
A major example is switching stylesheets
Oh, *really*! What kind of real-live web site (as opposed to some
specialised demonstration for experts) has any core-function-based
_need_ to use JS-based stylesheet switching? If this is your best
example, then it suggests that there's little of value that the
non-specialist web user stands to lose from following the security
advice coming from CERT and from the vendors themselves.
If you're developing sites with alternate stylesheets, you already
know that 90% of web users (no one argues that MSIE still holds 90%
of browser market share) *need* JS enabled in order to switch
stylesheets.


I'm baffled as to why you think this is relevant to the general topic
of what proportion of IE users have followed the vendor's various
security advisories and turned off scripting for untrusted sites.
Maybe it's vaguely on-topic for the kind of specialists who'd frequent
this group, but I thought you were trying to discuss the behaviour of
the whole gamut of web users: those particular folks who know enough
to come here surely also know enough not to be fooled by your kind of
"I can't make a site without it, hence I need to argue that most
readers will have it enabled, ergo 5 percent, Q.E.D" kind of
reasoning?

cheers

[1] A non-specialist friend lost hundreds of pounds when a web site
helpfully scripted a premium-rate dialler for him. Plus the time and
aggro to completely re-install a clean OS and applications to get rid
of the blasted thing.
Jul 20 '05 #24
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
Is it true that about 50% of the (experienced?) web users has
Javascript disabled ? I read this somewhere ...


I've seen any number of estimates, such as 30%, 10%, but rarely as low
as five percent.


Latest figures: http://www.darw.de/statistik/statistik-js.php
(and reload)

--
Meanwhile at the Google Ranch ...
"I can't read this bloody site; it's all Falsh and JavaScrap."
"Forget it and move on! Still 2*718*281*828 pages to crawl."
Jul 20 '05 #25
In post <NE****************@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>
Richard Barnet said...
Is it true that about 50% of the (experienced?) web users has Javascript
disabled ? I read this somewhere ...
Try 5% instead (five percent).
the numbers thrown around for people without JS enabled/unavailable is
usually 10%-15%.

thats 58 to 87 million people and may be as high as 98.25 million
people.
A major example is switching stylesheets in IE - really easy with JS (thanks
to an excellent article at AListApart), but impossible without it.
what a load of shit

http://usenet.alt-html.org/css-change.html
*need* JS enabled in order to switch stylesheets.


more shit

--
brucie a. blackford. 29/July/2003 06:49:07 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
Jul 20 '05 #26
In post <4B******************@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>
Dimitri Debruyne said...
The site I'm developing however will include quite some thumbnails and i
thought it would be nice if you just clicked the thumbnail and the picture
appeared in a separate browser window that one would like to close after
viewing anyway.


how about using a method like this:
http://usenet.alt-html.org/butterflies/

please don't toppost
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

--
brucie a. blackford. 29/July/2003 07:27:18 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
Jul 20 '05 #27
In article <gi********************************@4ax.com>, 'nuther Bob wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:36:43 GMT, ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

But target is all about the view of a document, not about the data, it
certainly shouldn't be in HTML, it should be only in a final form
language.

Jim.


Extending that attitude, a link (anchor) is about the relationship
between documents, not about the data, and does not belong in HTML
(ah, welcome to XML, please wait while we rebuild the WWW).


How now, chop-logic? Why should "the relationship between documents" not
be considered data? (It's metadata, of course, but data all the same.)

--
Chris Hoess
Jul 20 '05 #28
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:43:57 GMT, "Richard Barnet"
<ne**@richard-NOSPAM-barnet.com> wrote:
But it doesn't mean that you
should avoid it all together. On the contrary, well-planned use of
JavaScript can be very rewarding to the user.


I would be surprised if there were differing opinions here on this
issue. Anyone who has to live with the frustration that CSS isn't
totally supported by the various browsers, can understand how equally
frustrating it is that JS is not only disabled in some cases, but is
actually three different languages, all slightly different.

Sort of as an aside, while I use IE, and have always used it, I have
to say that the Mozilla project is probably the best thing to come
along in ages. I hope it consolidates the non-IE users, and then
starts to cut into the IE market ... to hopefully force the browser
people to all have a consistent back end. Holy crap, that would be
like manna from Heaven.

Ian
--
http://www.aspipes.org/
http://www.bookstacks.org/
Jul 20 '05 #29
On Tue, Jul 29, Ian Rastall inscribed on the eternal scroll:
I just want to point something out. It looks like you're posting from
emacs ... so if you're talking about a site that's designed for the
Unix world,
What kind of bizarre logic is that?

I suppose if I'd made a web page with Notepad, you'd be telling me
that it had been "designed for" a plain-text monospaced world?

Haven't you heard about designing for the World Wide Web?

Anyway, http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html
and half the users are on IE, that would be fairly suggestive.
It would be more than fairly suggestive that you don't really
understand what you're talking about. Here I am sitting at an
MS-Windows workstation using a Linux system and running a variety of
browsers. The fact that I post to Usenet using PINE tells you very
little about how I make web pages.
Not exactly trying to be psychic here. (It never works.)


True enough.

--
"This is not rocket surgery" - Stan Brown
Jul 20 '05 #30
On 29 Jul 2003 10:44:45 +0100, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote:
Oh, yes. The ones at the lower end were definitely the more
'technical' sites, which you'd expect to have a higher proportion of
users able to install a decent browser.


Well, you see what I'm saying. It could be the site, not the
percentage. So 50% could be skewed, as could 90%. My stats usually run
around 80%.

One good thing I notice in the stats is that all the IE browsers are
either 5.0, 5.5, or 6.0. That Windows Update feature for Windows is
neat, because it encourages people to use the latest versions.

Ian
--
http://www.aspipes.org/
http://www.bookstacks.org/
Jul 20 '05 #31
> Sort of as an aside, while I use IE, and have always used it, I have
to say that the Mozilla project is probably the best thing to come
along in ages. I hope it consolidates the non-IE users, and then
starts to cut into the IE market ... to hopefully force the browser
people to all have a consistent back end. Holy crap, that would be
like manna from Heaven.


Mozilla is OK, but as it is at the minute its just soooooooo slow! I'm sure
it will be further optimised in future versions, but I really can't use that
in preference to IE6 at the minute. Clicking refresh for example takes a
second before it seem to notice that i've clicked anything - for the minute
Mozilla on Windows will remain as a browser for testing only (although I
might try this Firebird thing - sounds more promising).

David
Jul 20 '05 #32
"David Walker" <wb*********@hotmail.com> writes:
Sort of as an aside, while I use IE, and have always used it, I have
to say that the Mozilla project is probably the best thing to come
along in ages. I hope it consolidates the non-IE users, and then
No, I use a Mozilla variant (Galeon) as my primary browser, but I can
understand why people would want to use Opera or Konqueror/Safari (to
name just two other good quality decent rendering engines)
starts to cut into the IE market ... to hopefully force the browser
people to all have a consistent back end. Holy crap, that would be
like manna from Heaven.


Mozilla is OK, but as it is at the minute its just soooooooo slow! I'm sure
it will be further optimised in future versions, but I really can't use that
in preference to IE6 at the minute. Clicking refresh for example takes a
second before it seem to notice that i've clicked anything - for the minute
Mozilla on Windows will remain as a browser for testing only (although I
might try this Firebird thing - sounds more promising).


You could also look at K-Meleon, which is a considerably faster
browser based around Mozilla for Windows. The interface is reasonably
similar to IE as well.

--
Chris
Jul 20 '05 #33
In article <Ze***************@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>, Richard Barnet
wrote:
"brucie" <br******@loser.brucies.com> wrote in message
http://usenet.alt-html.org/css-change.html

Too bad that page doesn't work...


Really? I can see absolutely no way how it could not work.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #34
> "brucie" <br******@loser.brucies.com> wrote in message
news:19***************@alt-html.org...

http://usenet.alt-html.org/css-change.html
*need* JS enabled in order to switch stylesheets.


more shit


Too bad that page doesn't work...


(The second page isn't found.) On the color boxes, you're not actually
switching stylesheets in real-time, they're links that *actually reload
the page* with a new stylesheet. Trivial difference, perhaps, but it's
not the same as switching stylesheets - going back to the server and
requesting a new page seems highly redundant and bandwidth intensive.
If you've already got all the information downloaded the first time, why
not just switch sheets without downloading it all over again?

-- Richard
Jul 20 '05 #35
In post <Ze***************@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>
Richard Barnet said...

A major example is switching stylesheets in IE - really easy with JS (thanks
to an excellent article at AListApart), but impossible without it.
what a load of shit
http://usenet.alt-html.org/css-change.html
Too bad that page doesn't work...


perhaps you could elaborate?

--
brucie a. blackford. 30/July/2003 12:45:49 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
Jul 20 '05 #36
In article <cp***************@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>, Richard Barnet
wrote:
"brucie" <br******@loser.brucies.com> wrote in message
http://usenet.alt-html.org/css-change.html
(The second page isn't found.)
Well, that shouldn't be surprise, at is says so. It is test page.
On the color boxes, you're not actually
switching stylesheets in real-time, they're links that *actually reload
the page* with a new stylesheet. Trivial difference, perhaps, but it's
not the same as switching stylesheets - going back to the server and
requesting a new page seems highly redundant and bandwidth intensive.
Well, if you use alternative stylesheets, some browsers download all of
them, even if none is ever used - It'll create more bandwich usage than
downloading one page again, when _changing_ stylesheet.
If you've already got all the information downloaded the first time, why
not just switch sheets without downloading it all over again?


Because it don't work? Because you can't bookmark page with nicest style?

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #37
In post <cp***************@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>
Richard Barnet said...
http://usenet.alt-html.org/css-change.html
Too bad that page doesn't work...

i'm still confused on that point.
(The second page isn't found.)
<quote>(not working, its just an example)</quote>
On the color boxes, you're not actually switching stylesheets in real-time,
they're links that *actually reload the page* with a new stylesheet.
and the disadvantage of re-downloading the page (in this case a
whopping 1.7K) is?
Trivial difference, perhaps,
you mean you're grasping at straws.
but it's not the same as switching stylesheets - going back to the server
and requesting a new page seems highly redundant and bandwidth intensive.
If you've already got all the information downloaded the first time,


you only need to retrieve the file once and once only. it is not as
intensive as downloading all 10 stylesheets when the visitor may not
even use one.

a) it is possible to change stylesheets without JS.
b) there are more advantages to doing it server side than client side.

--
brucie a. blackford. 30/July/2003 01:14:31 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/
Jul 20 '05 #38
In article <87************@dinopsis.dur.ac.uk>,
Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
"David Walker" <wb*********@hotmail.com> writes:
Sort of as an aside, while I use IE, and have always used it, I have
to say that the Mozilla project is probably the best thing to come
along in ages. I hope it consolidates the non-IE users, and then


No, I use a Mozilla variant (Galeon) as my primary browser, but I can
understand why people would want to use Opera or Konqueror/Safari (to
name just two other good quality decent rendering engines)


I can only understand why anyone on Mac OS X would not want to use
Safari for online banking, because in most cases those sites are such
bloated pieces of crap--build for IE--that it will never really work in
another browser.
I have IE/Mac ready for this, but it is the only reason why I keep it.

And once I hear of a bank who got its priorities straight and publishes
a site that can actually be used, I will switch bank accounts without
hesitation and dump IE/Mac for good.

Heck, those banks should have hired me for front-end work.

--
Kris
kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
Jul 20 '05 #39
> not the same as switching stylesheets - going back to the server and
requesting a new page seems highly redundant and bandwidth intensive.
If you've already got all the information downloaded the first time, why
not just switch sheets without downloading it all over again?


So instead you're going to download maybe dosens of style sheets when only
one is needed, and most users won't care enough to bother to switch anyway.
If its just lots of random visitors, they aren't going to want to change
stylesheets for maybe only one visit. On the other hand, if its a
member-type site, then they will find the one they want, and the server
should remember their preference and give them the same all the time - they
don't want javascript and to be downloading more stylesheets than the single
one they decide they like.

David
Jul 20 '05 #40
"Lauri Raittila" <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de...
If you've already got all the information downloaded the first time, why not just switch sheets without downloading it all over again?
Because it don't work? Because you can't bookmark page with nicest

style?


You bookmark the page, independent of whichever stylesheet you need (or
like). Set a cookie (oh the humanity), and the browser remembers the
preferred stylesheet across the entire site during the session and on
subsequent visits (depending on which type of cookie you use, session or
persistent). If the user blocks cookies, then it still degrades nicely.

Brucie's PHP method is nice, but apparently wouldn't work throughout a
site (across pages) without either adding the same type of cookie
functionality or hardcoding a bunch of links (page-two.html?style=00,
?style=01, ?style=02, etc.) (yuck).

Why isn't the second page working, by the way? Brucie's argument might
be a bit stronger if it actually did work...

-- Richard
Jul 20 '05 #41
In article <bg**********@nnrp.atgi.net>, Richard Barnet wrote:
"Lauri Raittila" <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de...
If you've already got all the information downloaded the first time, why not just switch sheets without downloading it all over again?
Because it don't work? Because you can't bookmark page with nicest

style?


You bookmark the page, independent of whichever stylesheet you need (or
like).


Exactly. How do I bookmark two (or same) page from site using different
style? If alternative stylesheet is useful, I want bookmark it. If it's
just useless decoration change, it shouldn't be there first place.
Set a cookie (oh the humanity), and the browser remembers the
preferred stylesheet across the entire site during the session and on
subsequent visits (depending on which type of cookie you use, session or
persistent). If the user blocks cookies, then it still degrades nicely.
And when I visit my bookmark year later? Or in using other browser? When
I post link to it, saying "look this nice design"? It degrades nicely
true, but what advantage it has to server side thing, that don't need to
degrade, as it works?
Brucie's PHP method is nice, but apparently wouldn't work throughout a
site (across pages) without either adding the same type of cookie
functionality or hardcoding a bunch of links (page-two.html?style=00,
?style=01, ?style=02, etc.) (yuck).
But it makes easy to know one is using some special style. And also it is
easy to get rid of it, even if style changer thingy is not in same page -
just strip query part.
Why isn't the second page working, by the way? Brucie's argument might
be a bit stronger if it actually did work...


Because it don't exist. There is no second page, he never made one. you
get 404, not plain page with wrong style. If he had made it, it would
work.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #42
In article <bg**********@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, David Walker wrote:
Its not the loading of the program that i'm talking about - actually loading
pages is significantly slower in Mozilla on Windows XP compared to IE6 or
Opera. Most of this has been testing local pages before I upload to the
primary server, so the delay is perhaps more noticeable than it usually
would be, but it can be very irritating when you click and nothing happens
for at times up to a second. Then again, I have no problems with IE6 so
don't really need to find an alternative anyway - but if i did, Mozilla
wouldn't be the first choice at the minute.


You are still using XHTML? IIRC Mozilla don't render XHTML before it is
fully loaded. That is about only way to follow XML rules that forbids
rendering incorrect (not well formed?) code. That might be difference.
OTOH, Might not.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #43
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 02:08:42 +0300, Lauri Raittila
<la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
You are still using XHTML? IIRC Mozilla don't render XHTML before it is
fully loaded. That is about only way to follow XML rules that forbids
rendering incorrect (not well formed?) code. That might be difference.
OTOH, Might not.


Pretty disastrous for usability of XHTML, and is for me the main
reason never to switch to XHTML, fortunately the SVG people didn't go
down this road and allow progressive rendering on the assumption that
document will be well-formed.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #44

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

46 posts views Thread by Robin Becker | last post: by
99 posts views Thread by Paul McGuire | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by tonyz.wrightz | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Will McGugan | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by Francine.Neary | last post: by
reply views Thread by devrayhaan | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.