Comments on: XHTML Strict

By: Ian.J.Gough

Ian.J.Gough — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:43:18 +0000

_blank
Great just what i was looking for i’ve spent a couple hours trying to get it sorted but your script requiring jquery.js is great! Thanks very much.
Ian

By: rocktivity

rocktivity — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:38:46 +0000

Thanks very much for the “target” javascript–it now resides on my root directory. I cut and pasted your example code, but the 3WC validator came up dirty until I put the line between paragraph tags.

And since I can call the rel anything I want, I’ve named it–WAIT FOR IT!!!–”target_blank,” of course!

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:45:41 +0000

Thanks for the note about FF, I have to agree, XHTML Strict doesn’t seem like it’s worth the trouble.

By: RiverC

RiverC — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:08:53 +0000

Mike,

It seems to me that the target attribute should be deprecated, since the information of where to put the new page is not part of its structure, thus belonging to another layer. The problem with deprecating it is not that it is incorrect but that web pages rely on the old standard. Arguments about frames and whatnot also fail because they were hacks to begin with, to deal with a situation where the standard could not support the desired functionality (yet.) I predict (if anything) that target=” will still be supported by browsers into perpetuity, in the same way that IE’s transition effects and mozillas ‘moz-…’ css attribs are unlikely to disappear.

Either way, the most important thing here – I think – is to adhere to the standard as closely as is reasonable, and to at all costs avoid invoking quirks mode. A good design from a good designer goes bad gangbusters style with just a fall into quirks mode.

Also, I would not recommend XHTML at all. I ran into a strange bug in Firefox 3 that occurred when it tried to parse XHTML (it randomly dropped into quirks mode – probably based on how the page was loading over the ‘net) but did not happen in HTML.

However, the choice is up to your best discretion. Given that HTML 5 supports the old style HTML; no self-closing tags for instance, and the boondoggle that is XML, switching over is not a no brainer, but a definite case for a cost-benefit analysis.

By: Mike S

Mike S — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:44:31 +0000

What do you think of this approach, which uses a custom DTD: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/files/zeldman.html It is described in more detail in the 8th message by Orbyte here: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=19703 As the last post on the page and the link below describe, The "target" attribute should not be marked as deprecated. Though not deprecated, it is not defined in the Strict DTD either. HTML 4.0 Specification Errata

By: Mike S

Mike S — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:35:35 +0000

Thans Jin, I didn’t realize that onclick was javascript, not that I thought about it, but I though the javascript had to be declared in tags, thanks for the link.

Is there any way to open XHTML strict links in a new window without using javascript?

By: Jin

Jin — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:05:43 +0000

@Mike S, because if people have Javascript disabled then all your links won't work. See Unobtrusive JavaScript

By: Mike S

Mike S — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:10:10 +0000

I was considering moving from HTML 4.01 to XHTML because I read that it would give my sites the best forward compatibility with future browser releases, but after reading about IE I’m wondering if it’s even a good idea – it sounds like it will cause more problems than it solves.

Also is there any reason not to use Casey’s onclick=”target=’_blank’” as it eliminates the need for javascript?

By: Derrick

Derrick — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:42:35 +0000

In reality, no one but other developers (and even then, very rarely) ever checks your validation badges. I find that people who code to a standard do so for themselves, not for others. Personally, I use the HTML5 DOCTYPE to force all browsers into strict mode, serve it as text/html to be cross-browser compliant, and then write XHTML-compliant code. In the strictest sense of the word, nothing I write “validates”, but given the choice between making a well-structured, functional, cross-browser website that doesn’t validate, or vice versa, it’s a no-brainer for me.

By: RiverC

RiverC — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:47:04 +0000

By the way, Jin. As for my second comment, the weird bug with FF went away when I changed the site from XHTML 1.0 strict to HTML 4.01 strict. I was noticing it on other computers (it was affecting display of fonts in critical areas) I suppose I originally used XHTML 1.0 because Joomla! was using it, and I used Joomla! for awhile. I wonder if others ran into the same problem.