[whatwg] Target Attribute Values
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Apr 27 20:49:12 PDT 2007
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Why is _blank still considered a conforming value? On IRC, Hixie
> mentioned that there are some legitimate use cases, but didn't list any.
> I've argued against popups many times before and heard many arguments
> for them, but I'm yet to hear of any legitimate use cases. If there are
> any, what are they?
I've removed _blank from the list of valid values.
> _new is also not specced, yet it is widely used and treated as a magic
> value like _blank in Firefox. Maybe it should be specced the same as
> _blank. However, IE, Opera and Safari didn't appear to treat it as such,
> so maybe it's not needed.
_new isn't supported in IE. I couldn't work out why Firefox supports it.
I've not added it.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Spartanicus wrote:
> As a user I detest new windows opening without having chosen to do that
> myself. But I'd question the wisdom of making _blank non conforming.
> 1) At least _blank allows me to filter it out before sending it to my
> 2) Afaik currently any attribute value for the target attribute which
> hasn't been defined opens a new window. If _blank were made non
> conforming authors would imo resort to using non defined names which has
> the same result in practice, but which makes filtering such methods out
> on the user end much harder.
If people widely blocked _blank, then authors would start using the names
anyway. So that doesn't really change anything in practice.
> I've argued my socks off trying to convince authors that they should
> leave opening new windows to users, but there are an awful lot of them
> who for various reasons insists on doing just that.
It would be interesting to hear the needs of these authors. Can anyone
elaborate? We might well need to re-allow it in the end, I'm curious to
hear why people use it.
> Would perhaps a spec conformance requirement that browsers should offer
> users a config option to opt out of windows being opened via target
> values be an alternative? It could avoid the seemingly unwin'able
> argument with authors who insist on doing this, and give users the final
This doesn't have to be in the spec, since it isn't required for interop.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> For most desktop applications in-depth help is presented in a separate
> window, so this will also likely be desirable for Web applications that
> do not consist of scrollable pages. (In those that do consist of
> scrollable pages, help would generally be better embedded in the pages
> themselves, perhaps as expandable sections.)
> So that's a use case for popup windows, but not necessarily a use case
> for _blank, because help windows are usually reused (akin to
> target="myappnamehelp" rather than target="_blank").
Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> In the online advertising business, ads are usually put in <iframe>s for
> security reasons. (So the ad can't tell what page it's on... get user
> cookies from that domain... etc.)
> So... if you didn't use a "_blank" for the target, the landing page for
> the ad would open up in the tiny <iframe> (instead of a new window).
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> That's a use case for _top or _parent, not _blank.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg