Re: _new considered harmful

_blank is certainly harmful, it's not even valid XHTML after all. I personnaly hate _blank : I'm perfectly able to open a link in a new tab or window if that's what I want. And actually, I hardly ever want to open a new window anyway.

Comment on Re: _new considered harmful Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: _new considered harmful by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 02, 2006 at 20:51 UTC
Update: Oh! I think you meant "`_new` is certainly harmful", instead of "`_blank` is certainly harmful". Ignore the rest of this post if so. Why do you say it's not valid XHTML? According to the XHTML DTD, the value of `target` is a `NMTOKEN`. `_blank` is a valid `NMTOKEN`. `Nmtoken ::= (NameChar)+ NameChar ::= Letter \| Digit \| '.' \| '-' \| '_' \| ':' \| CombiningChar \| +Extender` [download] Futhermore, it's not list as a difference with HTML 4, and HTML 4 explicitely lists `_blank` as a valid frame target name. (`_new`, on the other hand, is not listed.)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: _new considered harmful by wazoox (Prior) on Oct 03, 2006 at 13:37 UTC
Check with the w3c validator : any xhtml page containing `<a href="foo" target="_blank">` [download] will be dubbed as non valid XHTML strict. Well, actually that's the "target" attribute that's invalid, not "_blank".	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: _new considered harmful by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2006 at 15:10 UTC
It's defined in the Frameset DTD. Frames are valid XHTML, but they have in a seperate DTD since they have affect presentation.	[reply]
Re^5: _new considered harmful by wazoox (Prior) on Oct 03, 2006 at 19:52 UTC
Re^6: _new considered harmful by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2006 at 20:01 UTC