"Target" attribute | WPDFD.com Forums

Vladimir said:

04/18/04, 109 22 2004 2004:%i:1082319732 15:22:12

Hi all,

One of my XHTML Strict pages uses the "target" attribute in the element "a". I used the W3 validator and it said that this attribute didn't exist. ??? But there isn't any alternative. What can I do?

Thanks.

Joe Gillespie said:

04/18/04, 109 28 2004 2004:%i:1082320135 15:28:55

Don't use 'strict' - that's only for masochists!

Baxter said:

04/19/04, 110 27 2004 2004:%i:1082406441 15:27:21

I always use strict. Maybe I am a masochist, but it's the fastest way to force the browser into compliant rather than loose mode, and if it validates in strict, it's clean. But maybe I am a masochist.

I can't recall if I've run into this problem before and how I handled it, but a quickie google search suggested passing it off to the onclick function, like so:

foo

Joe Gillespie said:

04/19/04, 110 33 2004 2004:%i:1082417618 18:33:38

The tree that bends with the wind seldom breaks

Vladimir said:

04/19/04, 110 37 2004 2004:%i:1082417826 18:37:06

Baxter said:
I always use strict. Maybe I am a masochist, but it's the fastest way to force the browser into compliant rather than loose mode, and if it validates in strict, it's clean. But maybe I am a masochist.

I can't recall if I've run into this problem before and how I handled it, but a quickie google search suggested passing it off to the onclick function, like so:

foo

If you use the onclick function, however, won't pop-up blockers be activated? Because I don't think they block the "target" attributes though.

Baxter said:

04/20/04, 111 51 2004 2004:%i:1082472681 09:51:21

Good question, and offhand I don't really have an answer.
Try it and see. At most, yer out five minutes time, trying.

A really ugly, dirty solution would be to use document.write to insert the target function, but even if it worked, it'd be an ugly hack.

Here's a really high-zoot way of doing it that's way to complex for me to summarize here, but it looks like the author REALLY knows what he's talking about.

http://www.accessify.com/tutorials/standards-compliant-new-windows.asp

Joe Gillespie said:

04/20/04, 111 31 2004 2004:%i:1082482308 12:31:48

That stuff makes my brain itch and I can't scratch it. If they are talking about accessibility, why isn't it more accessible to humans? It's no wonder people shy away from 'strict'!!!

Baxter said:

04/20/04, 111 42 2004 2004:%i:1082486531 13:42:11

Do not fear "strict"... it has a clearly defined and relatively simple set of rules, and as long as you stay within them, your pages WILL work, and they'll work more reliably, as all browsers will be in compliant mode. Browsers in loose mode make my brain itch. Just too hard to remember all the differences.

Target is a funny thing, though. If it were me I'd ask myself "do I REALLY need this open in a new window"? If so, I'd probably use the simple onclick method.

Joe Gillespie said:

04/20/04, 111 43 2004 2004:%i:1082493797 15:43:17

But, IE in Strict mode is a quite different animal than Mozilla in Strict mode. Where do you what to go today?

Vladimir said:

04/20/04, 111 27 2004 2004:%i:1082507270 19:27:50

Well if you really wanted to write standards-compliant code, then you wouldn't want to use deprecated elements, which would then be classified as "strict"... I mean what's the point of using XHTML if you're still using font tags?

Baxter said:

04/21/04, 112 24 2004 2004:%i:1082571897 13:24:57

Yes, but they're much closer in strict than they are in loose. In strict, you're pretty much just worrying about the box model. In loose, all kinds of funky stuff can go down.

And who said anything about font tags?

Vladimir said:

04/21/04, 112 32 2004 2004:%i:1082597569 20:32:49

Font tags are deprecated elements, are they not?

Baxter said:

04/22/04, 113 41 2004 2004:%i:1082644876 09:41:16

Yes, but what's that got to do with anything? There's NO good reason to use a font tag, and since no one mentioned them, I'm having trouble understanding where they fit in.

Graham said:

09/21/04, 265 35 2004 2004:%i:1095788128 12:35:28

So is the common wisdom to just keep using Transitional? Or just stop wanting to open new browser windows... or use hacks to do it? Hmm.

Graham

Baxter said:

09/21/04, 265 55 2004 2004:%i:1095789350 12:55:50

I think the smart thing is to ask yourself "WHY am I opening a new window?"

If there's a good reason, there's probably a clear solution to the problem.

Or maybe not, in which case, use transitional and don't lose any sleep over it.

I don't really understand why the deprecated it without having a clear replacement mechanisim in place. I mean, I understand WHY they deprecated it (separation of behavior from content), but I don't understand why they dropped it without offering up a good alternative method.

Graham said:

09/23/04, 267 25 2004 2004:%i:1095985531 19:25:31

Right... I guess that's my problem with it. No clear replacement.

I'm opening a new window on links that are external to the site. Now, I guess I don't have to do this, and people can learn to use their back-button and/or history to find their way back. Does this sound reasonable based on your own browsing habits?

Graham

Kk5st said:

10/12/04, 286 12 2004 2004:%i:1097572378 04:12:58

The target attribute is deprecated in html4 and xhtml for all elements since windows and frames are outside the scope of pure document markup.

If you really can't do without it, use scripting to open the new window. That's the desired w3 method.

cheers,

gary