<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Standards-Compliant, Accessible New Windows Without JavaScript</title>
	<link>http://www.adammessinger.com/2004/12/20/new-windows-without-js</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:53:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Adam M.</title>
		<link>http://www.adammessinger.com/2004/12/20/new-windows-without-js#comment-1004</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.adammessinger.com/2004/12/20/new-windows-without-js#comment-1004</guid>
					<description>You make a lot of good points, Chris, and it's for many of those same reasons (and problems with pop-up blockers, too) that I quit using &lt;code&gt;target=&quot;outlink&quot;&lt;/code&gt; for external links on this site. Now I only use it for links to commenters' web sites on my photoblog, and I'll probably be getting rid of it there soon.

Still, I've always thought that the removal of &lt;code&gt;target&lt;/code&gt; from XHTML was a little arbitrary. It's interesting to see that there's a way to get it back and still validate as strict. It makes me wonder how much other deprecated markup you could pull into strict XHTML if you were so inclined, and at what point the ability to do so starts to spoil the whole point of these new, leaner specs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You make a lot of good points, Chris, and it&#8217;s for many of those same reasons (and problems with pop-up blockers, too) that I quit using <code>target="outlink"</code> for external links on this site. Now I only use it for links to commenters&#8217; web sites on my photoblog, and I&#8217;ll probably be getting rid of it there soon.</p>
<p>Still, I&#8217;ve always thought that the removal of <code>target</code> from XHTML was a little arbitrary. It&#8217;s interesting to see that there&#8217;s a way to get it back and still validate as strict. It makes me wonder how much other deprecated markup you could pull into strict XHTML if you were so inclined, and at what point the ability to do so starts to spoil the whole point of these new, leaner specs.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Chris Vincent</title>
		<link>http://www.adammessinger.com/2004/12/20/new-windows-without-js#comment-1002</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2004 03:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.adammessinger.com/2004/12/20/new-windows-without-js#comment-1002</guid>
					<description>I don't usually add any sort of target to my links.  Reason?  Most browsers, given a link targeted to a new window, do not allow you to right-click and open the link in the same window.  However, with no target, I can choose whatever I want.

It's more a problem with the browser than anything, but in the end, choice is the key issue.  Plus, most browsers don't tell you whether a link will open in a new window or not.  Given the mystery involved and the taking away of one choice, I'd rather the entire web be consistent and without targeted links, that way I can open new windows with a right-click; not something I need the site to decide for me.  Some sites have a checkbox allowing you to choose whether external sites open in a new window or not, that way you always know.  A step in the right direction, I think.

Well, that's my take anyway.  Regardless, there are times when you need things to open in a new window by default, such as complex web application interfaces.  I believe A List Apart had a tutorial a while back on accessible popup windows.  That might help you out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t usually add any sort of target to my links.  Reason?  Most browsers, given a link targeted to a new window, do not allow you to right-click and open the link in the same window.  However, with no target, I can choose whatever I want.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s more a problem with the browser than anything, but in the end, choice is the key issue.  Plus, most browsers don&#8217;t tell you whether a link will open in a new window or not.  Given the mystery involved and the taking away of one choice, I&#8217;d rather the entire web be consistent and without targeted links, that way I can open new windows with a right-click; not something I need the site to decide for me.  Some sites have a checkbox allowing you to choose whether external sites open in a new window or not, that way you always know.  A step in the right direction, I think.</p>
<p>Well, that&#8217;s my take anyway.  Regardless, there are times when you need things to open in a new window by default, such as complex web application interfaces.  I believe A List Apart had a tutorial a while back on accessible popup windows.  That might help you out.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
