target tag

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Eustace, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. Eustace

    Eustace Guest

    I have a frameset webpage that contains 2 frames (sidebar, main). The
    sidebar frame contains links like this:

    <a target="main" href="scan_01.jpg">scan_1</a>

    The target tag is validates OK in html 4.1 transitional but not is html
    4.1 strict. What is the correct syntax in html 4.1 strict?

    emf

    --
    It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
    https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/bd/itaintmebabe.html
    Eustace, Dec 10, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eustace wrote:

    > The sidebar frame contains links like this:
    >
    > <a target="main" href="scan_01.jpg">scan_1</a>
    >
    > The target tag is validates OK in html 4.1 transitional but not is
    > html 4.1 strict.


    It's an attribute, not a tag. The constructs <a target="main"
    href="scan_01.jpg"> and </a> are tags.

    And it's 4.01, not 4.1.

    > What is the correct syntax in html 4.1 strict?


    None. The target attribute is not part of the Strict version.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eustace

    Eustace Guest

    On 2009-12-10 11:11 Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Eustace wrote:
    >
    >> The sidebar frame contains links like this:
    >>
    >> <a target="main" href="scan_01.jpg">scan_1</a>
    >>
    >> The target tag is validates OK in html 4.1 transitional but not is
    >> html 4.1 strict.

    >
    > It's an attribute, not a tag. The constructs <a target="main"
    > href="scan_01.jpg"> and </a> are tags.
    >
    > And it's 4.01, not 4.1.
    >
    >> What is the correct syntax in html 4.1 strict?

    >
    > None. The target attribute is not part of the Strict version.


    So what is the alternative solution in the Strict version?

    --
    It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
    https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/bd/itaintmebabe.html
    Eustace, Dec 10, 2009
    #3
  4. Eustace wrote:

    > So what is the alternative solution in the Strict version?


    None. Why do you expect it to have one?

    Why do you care whether your markup conforms to Strict version or not, when
    it clearly does not contain a feature that you want to use?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 10, 2009
    #4
  5. Eustace

    Eustace Guest

    On 2009-12-10 11:45 Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Eustace wrote:
    >
    >> So what is the alternative solution in the Strict version?

    >
    > None. Why do you expect it to have one?
    >
    > Why do you care whether your markup conforms to Strict version or not,
    > when it clearly does not contain a feature that you want to use?


    Because

    1. I see it as an intellectual challenge. Besides,

    2. I keep up with current standards so that I won't find future
    standards too difficult and I won't have to make too many (possibly then
    obligatory) changes in my code in the future. Also,

    3. It took me a few years to move from html 4 transitional to html 4.01
    strict anyway, I mean, at one point I decided it was time to move on;
    and after revising my old webpages, I now create my new ones following
    the new standards. And

    4. I consider conforming to the standards as a satisfactory alternative
    to having check my personal webpages on different browsers and browser
    versions - if they don't see them as I intended it's their problem. (It
    goes without saying that this does not apply to all webpages.) Finally

    5. By complying to the standards I contribute in a small way to their
    general application, which would make browsing a little more problem free.

    Thanks for clarifying that I can't use html 4.01 stict code for this
    issue. It guided me to look and find the JavaScript alternative.

    emf

    --
    Date Calculator with all-purpose JS code
    https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/js/datecalc.html
    Eustace, Dec 10, 2009
    #5
  6. Eustace wrote:

    >> Why do you care whether your markup conforms to Strict version or
    >> not, when it clearly does not contain a feature that you want to use?

    >
    > Because
    >
    > 1. I see it as an intellectual challenge.


    There's no challenge. It's a trivial matter of elementary logic.

    > 2. I keep up with current standards


    The only HTML standard is ISO 15445, and hardly anyone uses (no wonder).

    > so that I won't find future
    > standards too difficult


    You can't know what they will be.

    > 3. It took me a few years to move from html 4 transitional to html
    > 4.01 strict anyway,


    Why would that be of any value as such?

    > 4. I consider conforming to the standards as a satisfactory
    > alternative to having check my personal webpages on different
    > browsers and browser versions


    Then you are very wrong. You seem to believe the crap written about
    conformance to "standards" (or even mere compliance to a DTD!) being a
    guarantee of interoperability. That's dangerous crap, not just nonsense.

    > 5. By complying to the standards I contribute in a small way to their
    > general application,


    Actually, you don't.

    But why would HTML 4.01 Transitional be any less standard than HTML 4.01
    Strict? They are defined in the very same W3C recommendation.

    > Thanks for clarifying that I can't use html 4.01 stict code for this
    > issue. It guided me to look and find the JavaScript alternative.


    I was afraid you were going to do that. All you have really achieved is that
    your pages (in addition to have some extra complexity for no good reason)
    fail to work at all when client-side scripting is disabled or filtered out.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 10, 2009
    #6
  7. Eustace wrote:
    > On 2009-12-10 11:45 Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >> Eustace wrote:
    >>
    >>> So what is the alternative solution in the Strict version?

    >>
    >> None. Why do you expect it to have one?
    >>
    >> Why do you care whether your markup conforms to Strict version or not,
    >> when it clearly does not contain a feature that you want to use?


    <snip>

    > Thanks for clarifying that I can't use html 4.01 stict code for this
    > issue. It guided me to look and find the JavaScript alternative.


    Okay I will end the dance and answer the the question you are not
    *exactly* asking but what you *mean* to ask. Target attributes that are
    for use with frameset and iframes which are not part of 4.01 strict. You
    do not want a JavaScript solution because JavaScript is optional, so if
    you page depends on JavaScript, no JavaScript then no page. What you do
    what is in place of frames is some type of server-size includes to
    assemble your website in maintainable bits...


    <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+to+include+one+html+document+into+another&btnG=Google+Search>


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Dec 10, 2009
    #7
  8. Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Target attributes that
    > are for use with frameset and iframes which are not part of 4.01 strict.


    Some common uses of target attributes have nothing to do with frames, such
    as target="_blank".

    The target attribute was omitted from Strict because it was regarded as
    presentational or user interface issue, rather than a structural feature.

    > What you do what is in place of frames is some type of
    > server-size includes to assemble your website in maintainable bits...


    Well, maybe, maybe not.

    I think the idea of using frames and the target attribute for presenting a
    collection of photos is much more logical than the idea of simultaneously
    using features such as frames and wanting some framed documents to the
    Strict. (Of course, the frameset page isn't Strict, so why should the framed
    pages be?)

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 10, 2009
    #8
  9. Eustace

    dorayme Guest

    In article <hfr05l$8ue$>, Eustace <> wrote:

    > I have a frameset webpage that contains 2 frames (sidebar, main). The
    > sidebar frame contains links like this:
    >
    > <a target="main" href="scan_01.jpg">scan_1</a>
    >
    > The target tag is validates OK in html 4.1 transitional but not is html
    > 4.1 strict. What is the correct syntax in html 4.1 strict?
    >



    Here is an example I used for someone here once:

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/frames/frameset.html>

    Notice the nav.html is transitional, the frameset something else again
    and the content frames Strict 4.01.

    Nothing particularly bad should happen to you if you were to use Strict
    4.01 for the nav.html frame, I don't know of any browsers that would
    fail to do what you wanted if you did use Strict 4.01

    It is obligatory here to mention that you should be careful of using
    frames these days because of the severe downsides in what has become a
    fast paced bookmarking society where people are very irritable and
    violent... I have personally witnessed a man kidnap a webmaster's family
    (including the dog) to demand that the master make his pages
    bookmarkable. The master naturally complied and the man set the family
    free (except for the dog, it point blank refused to go back).

    <http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil>

    There was a sequel to the above story. The webmaster concerned fixed the
    problem by making a separate frameset for each nav/content combination.
    But unfortunately, a gang of other webmasters tracked him down and shot
    him.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 10, 2009
    #9
  10. Eustace

    Lars Eighner Guest

    In our last episode, <hfr05l$8ue$>, the lovely and talented
    Eustace broadcast on alt.html:

    > I have a frameset webpage that contains 2 frames (sidebar, main). The
    > sidebar frame contains links like this:


    ><a target="main" href="scan_01.jpg">scan_1</a>


    > The target tag is validates OK in html 4.1 transitional but not is html
    > 4.1 strict. What is the correct syntax in html 4.1 strict?


    There is no target *attribute* in strict. Target is only meaningful in
    relationship to frames. Since frames are inferior in serveral ways, frames
    are not part of strict, so there is no need for the target attribute in
    strict.

    If you use only IFRAME, you can use transitional. If you use framesets, use
    the frameset DTD (which includes transitional).

    --
    Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 8
    213.0 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
    Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
    Lars Eighner, Dec 10, 2009
    #10
  11. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >> Target attributes that
    >> are for use with frameset and iframes which are not part of 4.01 strict.

    >
    > Some common uses of target attributes have nothing to do with frames,
    > such as target="_blank".


    True, a common bad practice...mayeb I should have said *indented* use?
    >
    > The target attribute was omitted from Strict because it was regarded as
    > presentational or user interface issue, rather than a structural feature.


    But still bottom line not part of Strict
    >
    >> What you do what is in place of frames is some type of
    >> server-size includes to assemble your website in maintainable bits...

    >
    > Well, maybe, maybe not.


    That is a common reason for the use of frames, as well as pilfering
    others content

    >
    > I think the idea of using frames and the target attribute for presenting
    > a collection of photos is much more logical than the idea of
    > simultaneously using features such as frames and wanting some framed
    > documents to the Strict. (Of course, the frameset page isn't Strict, so
    > why should the framed pages be?)
    >


    No reason.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Dec 10, 2009
    #11
  12. Eustace

    Eustace Guest

    On 2009-12-10 16:23 dorayme wrote:
    > In article <hfr05l$8ue$>, Eustace <> wrote:
    >
    >> I have a frameset webpage that contains 2 frames (sidebar, main). The
    >> sidebar frame contains links like this:
    >>
    >> <a target="main" href="scan_01.jpg">scan_1</a>
    >>
    >> The target tag is validates OK in html 4.1 transitional but not is html
    >> 4.1 strict. What is the correct syntax in html 4.1 strict?
    >>

    >
    >
    > Here is an example I used for someone here once:
    >
    > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/frames/frameset.html>
    >
    > Notice the nav.html is transitional, the frameset something else again
    > and the content frames Strict 4.01.
    >
    > Nothing particularly bad should happen to you if you were to use Strict
    > 4.01 for the nav.html frame, I don't know of any browsers that would
    > fail to do what you wanted if you did use Strict 4.01
    >
    > It is obligatory here to mention that you should be careful of using
    > frames these days because of the severe downsides in what has become a
    > fast paced bookmarking society where people are very irritable and
    > violent... I have personally witnessed a man kidnap a webmaster's family
    > (including the dog) to demand that the master make his pages
    > bookmarkable. The master naturally complied and the man set the family
    > free (except for the dog, it point blank refused to go back).
    >
    > <http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil>


    After reading the whole article hoping to be enlightened, I finally read
    the very last paragraph:


    > There are, however, good uses for frames. But as a cheap replacement
    > for server side tools and html-preprocessors, they are inadequate and
    > lacking.


    My webpage in question contains on the left frame the links to scans of
    the pages of a 1700 page book. At least at this stage I have no
    intention of loading the 1700 JPGs on the web. Instead, I instruct the
    visitor to download the RARs that contain the JPGs (from another site)
    and I provide him/her directions on what to do to be able to browse them
    in his/her computer. So the comment on server side tools, on which the
    whole argument is placed, just does not apply in my case.

    > The type of applications that frames are adequately capable of
    > handling are those applications that don't require bookmarking,


    Well, yes, neither, unfortunately, can I bookmark a page when I read a
    PDF book in Adobe Reader, though Adobe, of course, remembers the last
    PDFs opened. But then, for an important page to which I would like to
    return, I can choose Show only this page (in FF) and then bookmark it,
    and most certainly in the future I will do exactly this.

    > don't require search-engine indexing (and positively discourage it),


    This is exactly the case!

    > and don't require the ability to be accessible to the World Wide Web.


    This is also exactly the case!!

    > These typically are work-flow based applications that are created for
    > a specific purpose,


    This is also exactly the case!!!

    > and not for the general Internet population.


    And this is exactly the case!!!!

    So my webpage satisfies all the preconditions for "good uses for
    frames". I am very happy to learn this. I only wish this paragraph was
    at the beginning rather than at the end of the article, so I would have
    only skimmed the rest of it.

    emf

    --
    The folk oratorios of Mikis Theodorakis
    https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/mt/oratorios.html
    Eustace, Dec 11, 2009
    #12
  13. Eustace wrote:

    > My webpage in question


    Did you actually reveal its URL? I forgot.

    > contains on the left frame the links to scans
    > of the pages of a 1700 page book.


    You didn't mention any of this before. It's more or less obvious that your
    real problem is different from the one you asked here.

    What did the author of the book say when you asked for his opinion?

    > So my webpage satisfies all the preconditions for "good uses for
    > frames".


    You can keep the belief at least as long as you don't submit it to public
    criticism.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 11, 2009
    #13
  14. Eustace

    dorayme Guest

    In article <hftovi$u62$>, Eustace <> wrote:

    > On 2009-12-10 16:23 dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <hfr05l$8ue$>, Eustace <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I have a frameset webpage that contains 2 frames (sidebar, main). The
    > >> sidebar frame contains links like this:
    > >>
    > >> <a target="main" href="scan_01.jpg">scan_1</a>
    > >>
    > >> The target tag is validates OK in html 4.1 transitional but not is html
    > >> 4.1 strict. What is the correct syntax in html 4.1 strict?
    > >>

    > > Here is an example I used for someone here once:
    > >
    > > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/frames/frameset.html>
    > >
    > > Notice the nav.html is transitional, the frameset something else again
    > > and the content frames Strict 4.01.
    > >
    > > Nothing particularly bad should happen to you if you were to use Strict
    > > 4.01 for the nav.html frame, I don't know of any browsers that would
    > > fail to do what you wanted if you did use Strict 4.01
    > >
    > > It is obligatory here to mention ...
    > >
    > > <http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil>

    >
    > After reading the whole article hoping to be enlightened, I finally read
    > the very last paragraph:
    >
    > > There are, however, good uses for frames. But as a cheap replacement
    > > for server side tools and html-preprocessors, they are inadequate and
    > > lacking.

    >
    > My webpage in question contains on the left frame the links to scans of
    > the pages of a 1700 page book.


    OK, but my intervention was meant to assure you not to worry about the
    navigation doctype (the one presumably that contains the targeted links)
    being Strict 4.01 or simply to keep on using your transitional type. It
    is OK.

    As for your project, you are wanting to provide an electronic online
    version of a book by a page turning device in one frame and the pages
    themselves in another. The whole book? mmm... And presumably there is no
    online version in HTML or PDF but JPG images of the pages (all 17,000 of
    them?) and each one on a separate website?

    What a curious situation. I like it. My thoughts would turn to gathering
    all the pages and combining them into a PDF... It may seem like a lot of
    work, but you would be amazed how quickly it will go if you do a bit
    each day. I clear the backyard this way of weeds that grow between the
    brick pavings, 10 to 15 min a day on hands and knees with a sharp knife,
    an old sweater to act as a pad for my leg bones and a quick sweep up
    after. After about a fortnight, it is all done and little sweat. Plus
    this technique has the magical benefit of always working in the shade on
    a largely sunny area, try pulling this trick off doing the lot in one go!

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 11, 2009
    #14
  15. Eustace

    Eustace Guest

    On 2009-12-11 14:40 Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Eustace wrote:
    >
    >> My webpage in question

    >
    > Did you actually reveal its URL? I forgot.
    >
    >> contains on the left frame the links to scans
    >> of the pages of a 1700 page book.

    >
    > You didn't mention any of this before. It's more or less obvious that
    > your real problem is different from the one you asked here.
    >
    > What did the author of the book say when you asked for his opinion?
    >
    >> So my webpage satisfies all the preconditions for "good uses for
    >> frames".

    >
    > You can keep the belief at least as long as you don't submit it to
    > public criticism.


    What kind of belief you are talking about? You mean fact.

    emf

    --
    It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
    https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/bd/itaintmebabe.html
    Eustace, Dec 11, 2009
    #15
  16. Eustace wrote:

    > What kind of belief you are talking about? You mean fact.


    Apparently you wouldn't know what a fact is, even if one hits you on the
    face. This is a true statement, though it is not a fact. (Facts are true
    statements that are directly observable. People who call something "a fact"
    often couldn't distinguish between facts and other true statements, or
    between true and false.)

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 11, 2009
    #16
  17. Eustace

    Eustace Guest

    On 2009-12-11 16:21 dorayme wrote:
    > In article <hftovi$u62$>, Eustace <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2009-12-10 16:23 dorayme wrote:
    >>> In article <hfr05l$8ue$>, Eustace <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have a frameset webpage that contains 2 frames (sidebar, main). The
    >>>> sidebar frame contains links like this:
    >>>>
    >>>> <a target="main" href="scan_01.jpg">scan_1</a>
    >>>>
    >>>> The target tag is validates OK in html 4.1 transitional but not is html
    >>>> 4.1 strict. What is the correct syntax in html 4.1 strict?
    >>>>
    >>> Here is an example I used for someone here once:
    >>>
    >>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/frames/frameset.html>
    >>>
    >>> Notice the nav.html is transitional, the frameset something else again
    >>> and the content frames Strict 4.01.
    >>>
    >>> Nothing particularly bad should happen to you if you were to use Strict
    >>> 4.01 for the nav.html frame, I don't know of any browsers that would
    >>> fail to do what you wanted if you did use Strict 4.01
    >>>
    >>> It is obligatory here to mention ...
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil>

    >> After reading the whole article hoping to be enlightened, I finally read
    >> the very last paragraph:
    >>
    >> > There are, however, good uses for frames. But as a cheap replacement
    >> > for server side tools and html-preprocessors, they are inadequate and
    >> > lacking.

    >>
    >> My webpage in question contains on the left frame the links to scans of
    >> the pages of a 1700 page book.

    >
    > OK, but my intervention was meant to assure you not to worry about the
    > navigation doctype (the one presumably that contains the targeted links)
    > being Strict 4.01 or simply to keep on using your transitional type. It
    > is OK.
    >
    > As for your project, you are wanting to provide an electronic online
    > version of a book by a page turning device in one frame and the pages
    > themselves in another. The whole book? mmm... And presumably there is no
    > online version in HTML or PDF but JPG images of the pages (all 17,000 of
    > them?) and each one on a separate website?
    >
    > What a curious situation. I like it. My thoughts would turn to gathering
    > all the pages and combining them into a PDF... It may seem like a lot of
    > work, but you would be amazed how quickly it will go if you do a bit
    > each day. I clear the backyard this way of weeds that grow between the
    > brick pavings, 10 to 15 min a day on hands and knees with a sharp knife,
    > an old sweater to act as a pad for my leg bones and a quick sweep up
    > after. After about a fortnight, it is all done and little sweat. Plus
    > this technique has the magical benefit of always working in the shade on
    > a largely sunny area, try pulling this trick off doing the lot in one go!


    It's a special 1,700 page volume of a Greek encyclopedia published once
    some 60 years ago, which I frequently used during my school years. As
    far as I know, only the 11 RARs are available online so far. The idea of
    making them a PDF is an interesting one to consider in the future.
    Making a framed webpage was the first obvious solution in order to make
    the RARs usable first of all for myself, and sharing the possibility
    with some friends and the wider www public secondarily.

    emf

    --
    The folk oratorios of Mikis Theodorakis
    https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/mt/oratorios.html
    Eustace, Dec 11, 2009
    #17
  18. Eustace wrote:

    > It's a special 1,700 page volume of a Greek encyclopedia published
    > once some 60 years ago,


    You don't much about copyright, do you?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 11, 2009
    #18
  19. Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 11, 2009
    #19
  20. Eustace

    dorayme Guest

    In article <2LzUm.50874$>,
    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > Facts are true
    > statements that are directly observable.


    This is not true.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 12, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?c2VyZ2UgY2FsZGVyYXJh?=

    SImple TARGET tag question ?

    =?Utf-8?B?c2VyZ2UgY2FsZGVyYXJh?=, Mar 24, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    334
    =?Utf-8?B?c2VyZ2UgY2FsZGVyYXJh?=
    Mar 24, 2006
  2. jstack
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    580
    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
    Jul 4, 2003
  3. shruds
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    744
    John C. Bollinger
    Jan 27, 2006
  4. pradnya
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    317
    richard
    Nov 21, 2007
  5. mohit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    529
    mohit
    Jan 23, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page