I didn't say "broken"; I said "b0rked".

Actually, you said, "b0rken." Twice. And I said, "b0rked." Not that this is particularly relevant...

It is unfortunate that browser-level control of this behavior is not widespread or standard.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The choice of a browser involves tradeoffs. You cannot infer acceptance of the consequences of abusive web coding from the choice of browsers.

It isn't "abusive web coding." There arguably is no such thing so long as the code you write adheres to the standard. The onus is on the browser to provide acceptable behavior. In the case of target="_blank" the HTML 4.01 spec states only that the browser "should load the designated document in a new, unnamed window."¹ It is not a requirement that the browser do so to maintain compliance. So, yes, when you can choose between more than one compliant browsers, some which behave as you wish and some which don't, then your is choice is at fault.

But, all of that said, I'm not inferring your acceptance at all. I'm only suggesting that you are barking up the wrong tree. In other words, go complain to your friendly neighborhood browser developers. Or write a browser yourself that behaves the way you want. Or join the W3C and work to get the standard changed. Complaining because PM is allowing perfectly acceptable HTML is just misplaced irritation.

I really dislike web sites that think they should control my browser by opening windows when I click links.

Well, you can dislike a site for whatever reasons you choose. I dislike animated gifs. If I were to say that your way, I'd complain, "I really dislike web sites that think they should control my browser by displaying crappy animations when I open a page." But, the point continues to be that, if the website is controlling our browsers, it's because our browsers have let themselves be controlled. In reality, websites can't really do more than provide hints.

Fortunately for me, extensions for FireFox, my favored browser, allow me to turn off image animations as well as handle target="_blank" the way I want to handle it. So, I've got no complaints. Well... that's not true. I have other complaints now. For instance, it drives me batty that FireFox makes a separate request when I want to view source. That's a real pain when debugging issues on pages generated from POST requests.

1. The use of the word "should" here is as defined in RFC2119 Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels.

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
[download]

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";