Iv always used transitional documents up til now but have recently started with strict doctypes. I was doing fine untill a realised that you could not use <a> types such as _self, _blank and so on.

I cannot understand why these have been removed and why it is no longer essential to use them.

So I presume that as standard within a strict document a hyperlink is automatically set to _self. Im just guessing here but that is the type i use 90% of the time so I can get away with that, however what happens if I want to use a different type such as _blank or one of the other? Im sure there must be another valid way to do this without leaving XHTML.

Please note that I do not use javascript either as it is something I have never started to learn. I suppose it may be time since iv heard there is a way to to this using js but Im sure there must be some other way.

Thank you.

I had to look it up. Seems like the usual change for changes sake and some team of people somewhere trying to justify their existence lol

 

http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/standards-compliant-world

What utter nonsense!!! Looks like I'll be using the javascript which surely must defeat the object of making the page a quick as possible. Or I'll just stick with transitional for as long as possible!

 

Thanks for the link zed.

 

Regs,

Numb

Yeah, I found it a little annoying too.

 

If I click on a link to an external site, I want it to open in a new window 9 times out of 10 so I don't lose the original site I was on. I think its silly that it requires javascript to make such a basic function validate.

 

These days I find myself 'right clicking --> open in new window' with most external links without even realising I'm doing it.

 

You do have to remember, however, that validation is supposed to work FOR you, not AGAINST you. Its like including CSS3 border radius'; they aren't going to validate, but you know the reason for that so its nothing to worry about.

 

 

Kyle

Can I just throw a big spanner in the works here please?

 

Now I know it seems important that a site passes the W3C tests and validates, but to be honest, the only people who give a **** is other designers and developers. Now the only issue you have with validation is when you don't know WHY it doesn't validate. Then there is a problem. If you site is perfect without the _blanks, but doesn't validate without it... who really cares?

 

If the client is happy, take the money, say thank you, maybe even explain that their site wont validate in the W3C standards compliance test, but it isn't an issue as it is only down to the links opening in a new window, and it wont affect their site (just in case some smart ass approaches them and tells them their site is crap because it doesn't validate... )

 

My advice to you is... DON'T WORRY. Vanity will slow you down. Get your site right and then if you have to pull some stunts to make the client happy, then so be it

 

Just my 2p worth

Yeah, I found it a little annoying too.

 

If I click on a link to an external site, I want it to open in a new window 9 times out of 10 so I don't lose the original site I was on. I think its silly that it requires javascript to make such a basic function validate.

 

These days I find myself 'right clicking --> open in new window' with most external links without even realising I'm doing it.

 

What about the one time out of ten that you DON'T want it to open in a new window, yet it does? Frustrating isn't?

 

As you've already stated, you right click > open in new tab/window anyway.

 

The removal of the target attribute wasn't done to annoy people, it was done to improve usability.

 

If your site is that interesting, then people will return, even if they navigate away temporarily. Not everybody wants 20 windows or tabs open. It can be confusing for people.

 

Opening a new tab/window just because you don't want people to leave your site is egotistical and vain, and any site I visit (with the exception of forums) that do it, get closed, and never visited again. I'm guilty of it myself on a couple of sites that I've yet to update, but unlike most people I don't bitch about it because it annoys me. I understand why it's the way it is, and deal with it.

 

As web designers/developers, we're not here to make ourselves happy. We're here to ensure that the web is accessible and usable for as many people as possible.

 

If you have a window that REALLY needs to be opened in a new window, then either use the transitional doctype and stop bitching, or use one of the many javascript work-arounds and stop bitching.

What about the one time out of ten that you DON'T want it to open in a new window, yet it does? Frustrating isn't?

 

I wouldn't say frustrating, just a minor inconvenience. And to answer your question, yes, but I would still rather be inconvenienced once every ten times, than nine times every ten

 

 

Firstly, I'm not bitching, merely putting across my point of view.

 

I know I said 9 times out of 10, but to be honest, whenever a link is going to take me AWAY from the site I am currently on, I would like it to open in a new window; this is the reason I've had to adapt the way I browse by right clicking on external links.

 

I don't understand how then having to hit "back" on your browser window several times, looking through your history or even having to simply remember the site you had previously come across to reaccess it improves usability. To me its just annoying.

 

Now, everyone is different, and I am sure there are people who agree with this, and people who wholeheartedly diagree with this; thus the wonder of opinions.

 

 

Kyle

The "bitching" comment was aimed at you specifically Kyle. It was a general comment.

 

The only bit targeted at you, was the question about the 1/10 time.

 

The "bitching" comment was aimed at you specifically Kyle. It was a general comment.

 

The only bit targeted at you, was the question about the 1/10 time.

 

 

lol, no worries, re-reading my reply it sounded like I put a lot of credence on that comment... I didn't mean too :-P

 

 

Kyle