I didn't say "broken"; I said "b0rked". It is unfortunate that browser-level control of this behavior is not widespread or standard.

The choice of a browser involves tradeoffs. You cannot infer acceptance of the consequences of abusive web coding from the choice of browsers. At the very least, you don't get to tell me it's all my fault and that I shouldn't complain.

Now, I have been known to make my displeasure known to other web sites at their use of target=_blank on links. This case was the first time I recall running into that usage on PM, and it was not a site function, but a user created link.

I have yet to see a cogent argument why the target attribute is useful on PM. I have seen discussion of how it can be useful in a framed page, but that is not relevant here, nor to those discussions speak to setting it to _blank. I really dislike web sites that think they should control my browser by opening windows when I click links. It's popups all over again. I do have my browser configured to give me a visual cue that a link will try to open a new window, but that does not excuse the abuse of that feature.

My request was confined to its use here on PM.

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.";

Off-topic FYI:

For instance, it drives me batty that FireFox makes a separate request when I want to view source.

I've read that the next version of Firefox will not make a separate request for viewing source, as it tries to rely on the cache much more than it does now (also producing a speed-up in using the Back and Forward buttons).

Howdy!

*sigh*

My attempts at subtle nuances of connotation were clearly too subtle. No, this is not meant to be taken as "questioning your ability to read for comprehension" or any of those wonderful (?) phrases that serve to keep quality flame wars warm and toasty.

"broken" makes a clear statment that something is, well, broken, and (implicitly) should be fixed. "b0rken" was meant to convey the sense that, while I think there is something very wrong with the matter, I recognize that my view is (almost certainly) not universally held, and may, in fact, be a distinctly minority view.

On "abusive web coding"...

Just because something is legal by the relevant standards has no necessary bearing on whether or not it is abusive. I suspect that the hell of popup windows makes an instructive example. In the instant matter, I have yet to see, here or elsewhere, reasoned and convincing argument for *why* setting the target attribute to _blank is valuable. I have seen explanation of how it is a useful attribute in a framed setting.

When a practice has the recommended behavior of a construct is to cause the appearance of a new window, that has consequences on my computer that I wish to be able to control. To compare it to animated GIFs is fatuous. As a reducto ad absurdum argument, it doesn't wash. That I have been able to use feedback from this discussion to adjust the configuration of my browser to mitigate this behavior does not make the attempt to exercise it less egregious.

From the early days of the WWW, there has always been tension between people who felt it necessary to show that they knew how to work at the edges by putting up web pages and sites that presented truly obnoxious visions and viewers who rightly felt that they were the ones who should have considerable control over just what appeared on their screens. Some of us try to choose our browsers to maximize our control over the things web so-called designers try to inflict on us.

You cast the choice of browser as between picking one that behaves as I wish versus one that doesn't. I wish it were that simple. It isn't, and to then assert that my choice (involving tradeoffs) makes me at fault for the effects of the shortcomings of the choice I did make is so much baloney.

I have no expectation at this point that the target attribute will be removed from the list of acceptable attributes for the a tag. So be it. I floated the question, and it did not garner the sort of support I'd expect to see to cause it to be considered for implementation.

yours,
Michael