On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:30:21PM -0500, Mental Patient wrote: > 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). > > > > Thats an abuse of side effects and its usefulness is debatable. A highly > useful default page in a frameset is one with relevant CONTENT. If you > really want a blank page, create a blank page.
Okay, then the correct action is *not* to file a bug against links asking it to support about:blank. The correct action is to file a bug against Mozilla asking it to remove support for it in HREF and frame SRC arguments, correct? As long as we care about being standards-compliant..... /me ducks > >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. > > > > > > I think what he meant was as standard as in some sort of accepted and > somewhat followed document like say... an RFC or w3c standard. In other > words some sort of guarentee that is less subject to interpretation than > my-browser-does-it-this-way. In addition to browsers, how are spiders > that make an attempt at doing frames supposed to support about:blank? In > other words, what does it offer to the world at large as a standard that > can be relied on and is different from a blank page? If its just a way > to avoid 3 html tags, is it really even worth creating a patch and > supporting? Further, if you did use about:blank for a page and at some > point MS decides to make about:blank an msn page, opera decides to sell > advertising space on about:blank and konqeror points to kde.org/news, > who is right? > > Beides. When I start links with no arguments, I get a blank page. Whats > the problem? You should file a bug against whatever site uses > about:blank as content. > > > -- > > Mental ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > "The Torah... The Gospels... The Koran... > Each claimed as the infallible word of GOD. > Misquoted, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied. > Maybe that's why he doesn't do any more interviews." - sinfest.com > > CARPE NOCTEM, QUAM MINIMUM CREDULA POSTERO. > > GPG public key: http://www.neverlight.com/pas/Mental.asc > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
