Re: target=_new_window
On 8 Jun 2009 Harriet Bazley wrote: > I recently fell foul of a link which used the HTML code href="/local/page" target="_new_window"> and totally failed to open in a > new window as advertised in the body text of the parent page - is this > valid HTML? The only reference material I've got suggests that > target="_blank" is the way to do this, but "new_window" seems to work in > NetSurf as well. "_new_window", however, despite following the same > naming convention as "_blank" and "_parent", doesn't work. The attribute target="_new" works with most browsers (and is valid html), but for idealogical reasons, not with NetSurf. I haven't come across of the value "_new_window" before. -- _ |_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/ |\_||_mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com Disclaimer: Please imagine about 50 lines of pointless clutter.
Re: target=_new_window
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 09:50 +0100, Richard Porter wrote: > > The attribute target="_new" works with most browsers (and is valid > html) No it isn't, but as we've said time and again, that's irrelevant from a browser manufacturer's perspective. > but for idealogical reasons, I have no idea what you mean by this. > not with NetSurf. Which implies that there's a bug. John.
Re: target=_new_window
On 8 Jun 2009 John-Mark Bell wrote: >> but for idealogical reasons, > I have no idea what you mean by this. I mean that you have decided not to implement target="_new" because you believe that it isn't valid html and therefore shouldn't be supported. The pragmatic view would be to implement it because it is supported by most browsers and is widely used or at least was widely used and is still found on many sites. -- _ |_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/ |\_||_mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com Disclaimer: Please imagine about 50 lines of pointless clutter.
Re: target=_new_window
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 10:46 +0100, Richard Porter wrote: > On 8 Jun 2009 John-Mark Bell wrote: > > >> but for idealogical reasons, > > > I have no idea what you mean by this. > > I mean that you have decided not to implement target="_new" because > you believe that it isn't valid html and therefore shouldn't be > supported. Er, no. There was a bug. It is now fixed. Quite how you infer ideology from that, I have no idea. John.
Re: target=_new_window
On 8 Jun 2009 John-Mark Bell wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 10:46 +0100, Richard Porter wrote: >> I mean that you have decided not to implement target="_new" because >> you believe that it isn't valid html and therefore shouldn't be >> supported. > Er, no. There was a bug. It is now fixed. Aha, I see it is fixed in the latest release. Thanks for that. When I mentioned it in the past I was told it wasn't going to get done, as a result of which I've changed a lot of pages to "_blank". Richard -- _ |_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/ |\_||_mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com Disclaimer: Please imagine about 50 lines of pointless clutter.
Re: fleabay formatting
In article <5164a46650@nails.ukonline.co.uk>, Jim Nagel wrote: > Netsurf r7615 formats this page a thousand miles wide and a hundred > miles deep, most of it blank space; the payload is way way down: > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180355526675 Latest version d'loaded 16:39 on Jun 8th (r7730) still does this. Improved somewhat as all contents now adjacent and not spattered over the acres of space allocated. Going to the homepage gets width more or less ok, but the screen has to be scrolled for miles to find the bulk of the contents - 18 page downs to get there. Steve
