Whether to use target="_blank" for outside link

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Pritam Barhate, Dec 6, 2007.

  1. Hi,

    This question has been vexing me from quite some time now. When one
    links to the resources outside his/her website should the
    target="_blank" attribute be used for the <a> tag?

    Normally I use target="_blank" for anything that is outside my
    website. But this question bothers me even more when I am creating a
    list of resources. Since, while viewing these lists user will be more
    interested in the resources than my website.

    Recently I came across the following opinion a lot times:

    If the user wants to come back to your site he has the back button and
    also he can use the "Open in new window" option if he wants the linked
    resource to open in new window.

    Please share your thoughts about this point.

    Thank You.
    Pritam Barhate, Dec 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pritam Barhate

    rf Guest

    "Pritam Barhate" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > This question has been vexing me from quite some time now. When one
    > links to the resources outside his/her website should the
    > target="_blank" attribute be used for the <a> tag?


    No.

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pritam Barhate wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > This question has been vexing me from quite some time now. When one
    > links to the resources outside his/her website should the
    > target="_blank" attribute be used for the <a> tag?
    >
    > Normally I use target="_blank" for anything that is outside my
    > website. But this question bothers me even more when I am creating a
    > list of resources. Since, while viewing these lists user will be more
    > interested in the resources than my website.
    >
    > Recently I came across the following opinion a lot times:
    >
    > If the user wants to come back to your site he has the back button and
    > also he can use the "Open in new window" option if he wants the linked
    > resource to open in new window.


    Exactly. And this is much more suitable than leaving a user who's being
    browsing from site to site to site to finished up his session only to
    discover that he now has a dozen windows to close because each site's
    designer thought he needed to see the next site in a new window.
    Harlan Messinger, Dec 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Scripsit Pritam Barhate:

    > Normally I use target="_blank" for anything that is outside my
    > website.


    You haven't been reading this group (or FAQs or good tutorials) much.

    Generally, for a common question, you get much better answers by
    checking past discussions than by spawning new threads. For an
    explanation, see my Treatise on Human Misunderstanding (in preparation).

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 6, 2007
    #4
  5. Pritam Barhate

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > Pritam Barhate wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > This question has been vexing me from quite some time now. When one
    > > links to the resources outside his/her website should the
    > > target="_blank" attribute be used for the <a> tag?
    > >
    > > Normally I use target="_blank" for anything that is outside my
    > > website. But this question bothers me even more when I am creating a
    > > list of resources. Since, while viewing these lists user will be more
    > > interested in the resources than my website.
    > >
    > > Recently I came across the following opinion a lot times:
    > >
    > > If the user wants to come back to your site he has the back button and
    > > also he can use the "Open in new window" option if he wants the linked
    > > resource to open in new window.

    >
    > Exactly. And this is much more suitable than leaving a user who's being
    > browsing from site to site to site to finished up his session only to
    > discover that he now has a dozen windows to close because each site's
    > designer thought he needed to see the next site in a new window.


    Take me for example. I get pissed off. If I want to keep track of
    things and have your site up easy to get to and others to compare
    material etc I just Command key click and a link opens in a new
    tab (Windows users would have their own ways). Do it often.

    If you do not leave it to the user you are deliberately making it
    more difficult to be rid of your site, a user who wants to leave
    your site and go a link must do two things instead of one. He
    must click and then find yours and click the close.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Pritam Barhate

    Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:01:24 GMT
    Jukka K. Korpela scribed:

    > Scripsit Pritam Barhate:
    >
    >> Normally I use target="_blank" for anything that is outside my
    >> website.

    >
    > You haven't been reading this group (or FAQs or good tutorials) much.
    >
    > Generally, for a common question, you get much better answers by
    > checking past discussions than by spawning new threads. For an
    > explanation, see my Treatise on Human Misunderstanding (in preparation).


    Bravo, Mr. K. I, myself, am currently engrossed in a work tentatively
    entitled "On the Benefits of the Free Woman to Modern Society" which I hope
    to publish sometime before irrationality overtakes me completely. I offer
    my sincerest hopes to you in your endeavor with the same earnestness and
    regard for your own project's ultimate viability in the face of such
    awesome international cynicism.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
    Bone Ur, Dec 7, 2007
    #6
  7. Pritam Barhate

    +mrcakey Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >
    >> Pritam Barhate wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> This question has been vexing me from quite some time now. When one
    >>> links to the resources outside his/her website should the
    >>> target="_blank" attribute be used for the <a> tag?
    >>>
    >>> Normally I use target="_blank" for anything that is outside my
    >>> website. But this question bothers me even more when I am creating a
    >>> list of resources. Since, while viewing these lists user will be more
    >>> interested in the resources than my website.
    >>>
    >>> Recently I came across the following opinion a lot times:
    >>>
    >>> If the user wants to come back to your site he has the back button and
    >>> also he can use the "Open in new window" option if he wants the linked
    >>> resource to open in new window.

    >> Exactly. And this is much more suitable than leaving a user who's being
    >> browsing from site to site to site to finished up his session only to
    >> discover that he now has a dozen windows to close because each site's
    >> designer thought he needed to see the next site in a new window.

    >
    > Take me for example. I get pissed off. If I want to keep track of
    > things and have your site up easy to get to and others to compare
    > material etc I just Command key click and a link opens in a new
    > tab (Windows users would have their own ways). Do it often.
    >
    > If you do not leave it to the user you are deliberately making it
    > more difficult to be rid of your site, a user who wants to leave
    > your site and go a link must do two things instead of one. He
    > must click and then find yours and click the close.
    >


    This has done the rounds quite a lot and the very clear consensus is
    that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING. One thing that anyone who's
    browsed the web for any length of time will be familiar with is leaving
    a site, getting engrossed in the new one and losing interest in the
    first. Particularly for casual browsing.

    I think, if you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want your
    users to come back then this is one time using frames is acceptable:
    link to a page within your own site that contains a narrow "navigation"
    frame to take you back to the calling page, and a main frame filled by
    the external site.

    +mrcakey
    +mrcakey, Dec 7, 2007
    #7
  8. On Dec 6, 5:24 am, Pritam Barhate <> wrote:
    > Normally I use target="_blank"...


    You know, I agree with everyone here that told you don't do it. And
    myself, I do not like it when a site uses it.

    But would I ever leave a site because they use it to open new
    windows? Probably not.

    So my advice would be to not do it, just like everyone else said. But
    in the grand scheme of things I doubt any interested visitor would
    leave because you opened another window.
    Travis Newbury, Dec 7, 2007
    #8
  9. Pritam Barhate

    dorayme Guest

    In article <fjb4pf$mjn$>,
    +mrcakey <> wrote:

    > the very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING


    > I think, if you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want your
    > users to come back then this is one time using frames is acceptable


    (1) The very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a
    BAD THING

    (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want
    your users to come back then this is one time using frames is
    acceptable

    (3) Most sites DO link to outside

    (4) Most site authors WANT users to come back

    (5) Most sites should use frames (from 2, 3 and 4)

    (6) If you use frames and want to link to outside, you use
    target="_blank"

    (7) Using target="_blank" is a GOOD THING

    ergo

    (8) The consensus that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING is
    false

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 7, 2007
    #9
  10. Pritam Barhate

    Els Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    > In article <fjb4pf$mjn$>,
    > +mrcakey <> wrote:
    >
    >> the very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING

    >
    >> I think, if you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want your
    >> users to come back then this is one time using frames is acceptable

    >
    > (1) The very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a
    > BAD THING
    >
    > (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want
    > your users to come back then this is one time using frames is
    > acceptable
    >
    > (3) Most sites DO link to outside
    >
    > (4) Most site authors WANT users to come back
    >
    > (5) Most sites should use frames (from 2, 3 and 4)
    >
    > (6) If you use frames and want to link to outside, you use
    > target="_blank"
    >
    > (7) Using target="_blank" is a GOOD THING
    >
    > ergo
    >
    > (8) The consensus that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING is
    > false


    Nah, point 2 is false, rendering the conclusion at point 5
    non-existent, making point 3, 4 and 6 irrelevant, point 7 meaningless,
    and thus leaving us with the original at point 1: opening outbound
    links in a new window is a BAD THING :)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Dec 7, 2007
    #10
  11. dorayme wrote:

    > (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want
    > your users to come back then this is one time using frames is
    > acceptable


    ...until you get to a site like mine, which will break out of the frame,
    leaving the visitor with nothing to go back to...

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 7, 2007
    #11
  12. Pritam Barhate

    dorayme Guest

    In article <no7n2wvme3tk.73uvrzuyruwr$>,
    Els <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > In article <fjb4pf$mjn$>,
    > > +mrcakey <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> the very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING

    > >
    > >> I think, if you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want your
    > >> users to come back then this is one time using frames is acceptable

    > >
    > > (1) The very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a
    > > BAD THING
    > >
    > > (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want
    > > your users to come back then this is one time using frames is
    > > acceptable
    > >
    > > (3) Most sites DO link to outside
    > >
    > > (4) Most site authors WANT users to come back
    > >
    > > (5) Most sites should use frames (from 2, 3 and 4)
    > >
    > > (6) If you use frames and want to link to outside, you use
    > > target="_blank"
    > >
    > > (7) Using target="_blank" is a GOOD THING
    > >
    > > ergo
    > >
    > > (8) The consensus that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING is
    > > false

    >
    > Nah, point 2 is false, rendering the conclusion at point 5
    > non-existent, making point 3, 4 and 6 irrelevant, point 7 meaningless,
    > and thus leaving us with the original at point 1: opening outbound
    > links in a new window is a BAD THING :)


    I guess, then, you don't appreciate my reductio ad absurdum. If
    you don't, there are not many others that will, given you are one
    of the sharpest. Perhaps this will help to give you a better
    understanding of it:

    It is not me that asserts the truth of (2). This is asserted by
    the person to whom I am replying. (2) is an assertion. But I did
    not assert it. Lets go though the whole thing:

    +mrcakey comes along and says both (1) and (2).

    So I put them both down to see where such a conjunction leads to.
    And if you look closely, it leads to 7 and 8 which shows that
    there is something wrong with believing both 1 and 2. This type
    of argument is sometimes called a reductio ad absurdum.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 7, 2007
    #12
  13. Pritam Barhate

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <Sfj6j.26778$>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want
    > > your users to come back then this is one time using frames is
    > > acceptable

    >
    > ..until you get to a site like mine, which will break out of the frame,
    > leaving the visitor with nothing to go back to...


    Good for you. It is a bad practice to put other people's web
    pages inside your own frames.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 7, 2007
    #13
  14. Pritam Barhate

    Els Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    > In article <no7n2wvme3tk.73uvrzuyruwr$>,
    > Els <> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <fjb4pf$mjn$>,
    >>> +mrcakey <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> the very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING
    >>>
    >>>> I think, if you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want your
    >>>> users to come back then this is one time using frames is acceptable
    >>>
    >>> (1) The very clear consensus is that using target="_blank" is a
    >>> BAD THING
    >>>
    >>> (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want
    >>> your users to come back then this is one time using frames is
    >>> acceptable
    >>>
    >>> (3) Most sites DO link to outside
    >>>
    >>> (4) Most site authors WANT users to come back
    >>>
    >>> (5) Most sites should use frames (from 2, 3 and 4)
    >>>
    >>> (6) If you use frames and want to link to outside, you use
    >>> target="_blank"
    >>>
    >>> (7) Using target="_blank" is a GOOD THING
    >>>
    >>> ergo
    >>>
    >>> (8) The consensus that using target="_blank" is a BAD THING is
    >>> false

    >>
    >> Nah, point 2 is false, rendering the conclusion at point 5
    >> non-existent, making point 3, 4 and 6 irrelevant, point 7 meaningless,
    >> and thus leaving us with the original at point 1: opening outbound
    >> links in a new window is a BAD THING :)

    >
    > I guess, then, you don't appreciate my reductio ad absurdum. If
    > you don't, there are not many others that will, given you are one
    > of the sharpest. Perhaps this will help to give you a better
    > understanding of it:
    >
    > It is not me that asserts the truth of (2). This is asserted by
    > the person to whom I am replying. (2) is an assertion. But I did
    > not assert it. Lets go though the whole thing:
    >
    > +mrcakey comes along and says both (1) and (2).
    >
    > So I put them both down to see where such a conjunction leads to.
    > And if you look closely, it leads to 7 and 8 which shows that
    > there is something wrong with believing both 1 and 2. This type
    > of argument is sometimes called a reductio ad absurdum.


    I actually did get it, but just liked to refute the conclusion with a
    more indepth analysis ;-)

    As for the term 'reductio ad absurdum', I didn't know it, but it
    sounds like a good term for the concept. Would that be the same thing
    as that mysterious mathematical calculation that (by sneaking a
    non-truth into the equation) seems to prove that 1 = 0?

    (sorry for lack of snippage - couldn't make up my mind on what to
    leave in or out)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Dec 7, 2007
    #14
  15. dorayme wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>
    >>> (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want your
    >>> users to come back then this is one time using frames is acceptable

    >>
    >> ..until you get to a site like mine, which will break out of the
    >> frame, leaving the visitor with nothing to go back to...

    >
    > Good for you. It is a bad practice to put other people's web pages
    > inside your own frames.


    ...which is precisely why I added the code years ago. Some jerk had a
    link on his main page to a site of mine, and the link called up a
    frameset so my entire site appeared with his domain name in the location
    bar.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 8, 2007
    #15
  16. Pritam Barhate

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <Wrl6j.27064$>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    > >> dorayme wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> (2) If you HAVE to link to an outside site and you still want your
    > >>> users to come back then this is one time using frames is acceptable
    > >>
    > >> ..until you get to a site like mine, which will break out of the
    > >> frame, leaving the visitor with nothing to go back to...

    > >
    > > Good for you. It is a bad practice to put other people's web pages
    > > inside your own frames.

    >
    > ..which is precisely why I added the code years ago. Some jerk had a
    > link on his main page to a site of mine, and the link called up a
    > frameset so my entire site appeared with his domain name in the location
    > bar.


    The only alternative you had, I guess, was to ride right up to
    his place, park the big bike right out front and go see him... <g>

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 8, 2007
    #16
  17. Pritam Barhate

    dorayme Guest

    In article <7hhx7s0bf4g0.6n8jzec2zeol$>,
    Els <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:


    > > I guess, then, you don't appreciate my reductio ad absurdum. If
    > > you don't, there are not many others that will, given you are one
    > > of the sharpest. Perhaps this will help to give you a better
    > > understanding of it:
    > >


    .... snip

    > I actually did get it...


    I guess I was puzzled by you saying that 2 was false when you
    were tackling the argument - because it is irrelevant to the
    argument that it is false.

    Anyway, there are interesting and tricky notions surrounding
    these types of considerations. Validity is only one type of
    goodness in arguments (just as it it is in website pages) but it
    is what arguments are best at. Truth is something else
    altogether.

    Usually, a person will usefully (educatively) advance an argument
    if he is confident that his audience is likely to assent to the
    premises. The truth of the premises in any final argument from
    one person to another is taken for granted, The point is to lead
    the audience to see that the conclusion results from what they
    already accept.

    There are many exceptions to this description. For example, in
    the teaching of argument to people, an example is often given,
    there being no assumption of truth in either the premises or the
    conclusion. Nor in someone who is considering various arguments
    so as to work out what might be worth exploring further. And,
    curiously enough, in the argument by reductio, this is not so
    either. More on this in a moment.

    While it is true that everyone has a good enough grasp of the
    ideas of truth and falsity, it is not the case that these, when
    combined with the notion of argument, have commonsensical
    relations. It is therefore not surprising that there can be some
    confusion about them.

    A valid argument, to use a concept in perhaps a stricter than
    commonsensical way, is an argument whose premise(s) entail the
    conclusion(s). It is not one where the conclusion is true, or one
    where the premises are true. It is one where, if the premises are
    true, the conclusion must be true. (There are some equally strict
    but weaker types of validity and implication in formal logical
    systems but I am not talking about these).

    Validity is purely a relation between statements and there are
    many assertions (including the conclusion) that can be false
    while yet the argument remains valid. (Just as a website can pass
    a validation test and yet have every other kind of fault)

    There is only one particular arrangement of truth and falsity in
    a valid argument that is ruled out, namely the combination of
    true premises with false conclusion. Any argument that is known
    to have true premises with a false conclusion is thereby known to
    to be invalid. It is a bad argument by being invalid. The
    conclusion does not follow from the premises.

    The condition of an argument being valid is simply this: if the
    premises are true, the conclusion must be. This says nothing
    about the truth of either the premises or the conclusion. How to
    know the truth of the premises is entirely out of the scope of
    any one argument being assessed.

    A reductio is a rather special sort of argument, it is a sort of
    meta argument in which people are invited to look at how more
    normal arguments within play themselves out.

    If I thought anyone in the whole world was still awake I would go
    on... but even I have limits when I hear snoring... <g>

    > As for the term 'reductio ad absurdum', I didn't know it, but it
    > sounds like a good term for the concept. Would that be the same thing
    > as that mysterious mathematical calculation that (by sneaking a
    > non-truth into the equation) seems to prove that 1 = 0?
    >


    One can show the most absurd conclusions by including what is not
    true in the premises. A reductio is more strictly an exhibition
    of how an assumption or set of assumptions leads to a
    contradiction.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 8, 2007
    #17
  18. Pritam Barhate

    mbstevens Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    > Validity is purely a relation between statements and there are
    > many assertions (including the conclusion) that can be false
    > while yet the argument remains valid. (Just as a website can pass
    > a validation test and yet have every other kind of fault)


    Just to avoid confusion about something I think you already know,
    but which got me thinking:

    The 'validation' test of a website has an unclear relation to valid
    arguments in logic. Validaton by the HTML validator
    is about well formedness only, without a model (interpretation).

    Valid in logic has to do not only with well formedness
    of the argument, but with the interpretation of the logic
    -- in the case of standard first order logic, of truth and falsity.

    The 'model' of HTML, if it could even be called that,
    _might_ have to do, vaguely, with either

    1) semantic markup -- this
    semantics not of truth and falsity but or some vague
    relation to the use of terms like 'list' and 'title' in
    natural languages to describe parts of a page.

    or,

    2) the way the client software 'interprets' the markup for actual display.
    This is incompletely developed in the specs.


    > ........
    > If I thought anyone in the whole world was still awake I would go
    > on... but even I have limits when I hear snoring... <g>


    No, that was admirable.
    mbstevens, Dec 8, 2007
    #18
  19. Pritam Barhate

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    mbstevens <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > Validity is purely a relation between statements and there are
    > > many assertions (including the conclusion) that can be false
    > > while yet the argument remains valid. (Just as a website can pass
    > > a validation test and yet have every other kind of fault)

    >
    > Just to avoid confusion about something I think you already know,
    > but which got me thinking:
    >
    > The 'validation' test of a website has an unclear relation to valid
    > arguments in logic.


    I was merely drawing an analogy for the purpose of an aside and
    to point out that there are a number of types of goodness to both
    arguments and websites, none of which necessarily confer other
    types of goodness. Both can satisfy certain tests to do with
    conformance to standards and that is just one important thing, a
    necessary thing if you like, that we should hold both to.

    > Validaton by the HTML validator
    > is about well formedness only, without a model (interpretation).
    >


    Right. And the true analogy for this would be the "material
    implication" of some formal logical systems and which can be
    cashed out completely in simple truth value tabular criteria. In
    this type of formal "valid" argument, valid simply means not(p
    and not q) where p is the conjunction of the premises and q is
    the conjunction of the conclusions. This does capture quite a lot
    of what we want when thinking about arguments, entailment and
    necessity and it is so clean and transparent that it enables us
    to make formal and powerful tests on complicated series of
    statements. Machines can do it.

    But the notion of real implication, the idea of necessity, the
    whole business of rational force of an argument goes beyond this
    formality. This richer sort of entailment is nothing that can be
    easily abstracted. It is something deep and murkier and has much
    to do with how human beings feel compelled by some very basic
    things. I am not wanting to relativise logic to human feelings
    but there is something very "wet" about the whole thing in
    practice. It is bound up with how they learn language, how they
    evolved over millions of years, how they are built to react and
    judge.

    If humans did not feel a compulsion when some very basic things
    are considered, they would not have the impressive rationality
    that enables them to get to the moon, to name a concrete
    achievement. The force of an argument depends on meaning, not the
    shape of symbols. And meaning is not something mere machines are
    good at. Machines don't have the right structure or genetic make
    up... yet!

    >
    > > ........
    > > If I thought anyone in the whole world was still awake I would go
    > > on... but even I have limits when I hear snoring... <g>

    >
    > No, that was admirable.


    Thank you.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 8, 2007
    #19
  20. Scripsit dorayme:

    > In article <>,
    > mbstevens <> wrote:

    - -
    >> Validaton by the HTML validator
    >> is about well formedness only, without a model (interpretation).

    >
    > Right.


    Wrong.

    Before digging yourselves deeper into a hole of confusion, consider
    learning what (markup) validation is, before writing treatises on it.

    Both "valid" and "well-formed" are strictly defined terms, and quite
    different from each other.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 8, 2007
    #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. msnews.microsoft.com

    Redirect and Target="_blank"

    msnews.microsoft.com, Dec 31, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    25,049
    Al Cadalzo
    Jan 3, 2004
  2. ad
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    7,021
    Yunus Emre ALPĂ–ZEN [MCSD.NET]
    Jul 3, 2005
  3. Jon via DotNetMonster.com

    why isnt target="_blank" working????

    Jon via DotNetMonster.com, Apr 10, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,693
    Patrice
    Apr 10, 2006
  4. Matt
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,490
    Whitecrest
    Jun 1, 2004
  5. Webdesigner

    IE 6 hanging on target="_blank"

    Webdesigner, Jun 5, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    762
    Whitecrest
    Jun 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page