Re: target="_blank"

Ah yes. You are most correct in pointing out the terminology. As a former member of ANSI X3H3.1 I should have spotted the lame excuse for a requirement immediately :^) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lars Torben Wilson" <torben@php.net> > Mark Charette writes: > > If you would check > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-html40-970708/present/frames.html#adef-target you > > will note that _blank as a target is defined: > > "The user agent should load the designated document in a new, unnamed > > window. " > > > > That's pretty specific! If a browser does not support that semantic then it > > is not HTML 4.0 compliant, and you should complain to the vendor if they > > claim 4.0 compliance. > > Actually, that's not quite true--the document you mention states that > words such as 'must', 'should', etc are used in accordance with RFC > 2119's definitions. RFC 2119 can be viewed here: > > http://www.pmg.lcs.mit.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/view?2119 > > ...and states: > > 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. > > So failure to accept '_blank' doesn't necessarily mean non-compliance, > although I personally think that it's pretty damn lame. :)