On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:46:37AM -0800, Tom wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:37:19AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:15:31AM -0800, Tom wrote: > > > I filed a wishlist bug against "links" asking for it to support > > > about:blank (highly useful in frames pages as a default for the "body" > > > frame). > > > > > > Maintainer closed it as a nonstandard feature, but asked me I could > > > point to a standard. Do you know of any significant graphical browsers > > > that don't support "about:blank" by returning a blank page? I know they > > > all handle other "about:xxx" commands differently. > > > > He asked you to come up with a standard, so why aren't you looking > > for that? Might be nice to come up with a list of "browsers that do" > > and "browsers that don't", but you're still going to need to point to > > an RFC to have a convincing argument. Good on the maintainer for > > adhering to standards and not giving in to creaping feeturitus. > > How come y'all are being adversarial? I agree with the maintainer. > I'm just curious what browsers support it :-) Jeez, grandstanding....
You know there are such things as "defacto" standards as well as "dejure" standards. It is my contention that many browser authors have found it useful to include "about:blank" primarily as a way of saying "no start page." If it's not a standard, how come everybody's doing it? The Romans couldn't think of the concept of zero, and thus doing long division in Roman Numerals sucked. :-) Did you know that in SQL the truth value of NULL = NULL is NULL. And the group by statement groups together things whose equality truth value is TRUE. Except it groups together NULLs :-) People have trouble of thinking of things that aren't there. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
