|
Posted by Erwin Moller on October 8, 2008, 8:47 am
Please log in for more thread options
viza schreef:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
>> viza schreef:
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
>
>>> No, making your users have to alt-tab back to the previous window and
>>> close it and then switch back to the new one is annoying. It discards
>>> the history and puts the window's icon in a different place in the
>>> taskbar.
>> I know.
>> But in some situations it is better than full pagereloads (or demanding
>> JavaScript).
>
> It never is.
Hi Viza,
It never is? Quite a statement.
Please consider the following real life situation:
1) A certain page is produced by PHP as a result from some huge
databasequery that is quite demanding for the server.
2) The user must select many tuples for editting.
This is the moment I REALLY want a new window. The clicked tuple will
open in it, in a form, ready for editting and submitting back to the
server.
The server now only has to query one tuple, and I put it in a form. Easy
enough for the user, and easy for the server too.
If I do NOT have the luxery of a new window, I must reload the whole
page, and open the tuple in an edit-form.
This leads to:
1) Heavy serverload
2) Annoyed users (who must wait for each and every edittingaction)
In most circumstances I use an Ajaxoid approach to do this, but I am not
always allowed to demand JavaScript. In that situation a new window is
ideal.
(Using Ajax would have the advantage for me that I can update the huge
page without a huge pagereload, so I can immediately reflect the
changes. But no JavaScript means of course no Ajax.)
Please comment on the above scenario.
I totally miss target="" in STRICT in the described situation.
>
>>>> In my humble opinion, this is a designmistake of w3c for strict
>>>> doctype. If you throw something out of the window, at least offer a
>>>> method/way of doing the same (in a different way).
>>> They have done exactly that. It is called "transitional". This is the
>>> whole point and explicit purpose of transitional.
>> That doesn't explain the removal of the target. I want to use STRICT to
>> make sure my pages are well build.
>
> It is very simple: well built pages do not use target. Pages that use
> target use transitional to indicate that to the browser.
>
>> It is very simple:
>> -> If you hate the use of multiple windows, you don't use target="". ->
>> If you DO want to offer it, you use target="".
>
> Who is "you"? What matters is what the user hates, not you as the
> developer.
No go there.
As you mentioned yourself you, the webdeveloper, can use transitional
doctype, and have a (legal) target.
So it IS already up to the developer.
Wise builders try not to annoy their users of course.
But saying a new window is always an annoyance is not a fact, but a
matter of taste.
That is why I don't understand it is removed in the STRICT doctype.
I read up a little more since my original post: I am not excactly the
first one that thinks this is a mistake of w3c.
>
>> Leave it to the designer of the webpage. Putting this into the
>> definition of STRICT doctype is way too paternalizing for my taste.
>
> No one at the w3c is trying to stop you from using target. If you choose
> to not use it then you can mark your pages as strict. If you choose to
> use it then you should mark them as transitional. Deciding on strict
> when you don't like what strict means is what causes you this problem.
Yes, that is completely clear to me.
What is not clear is WHY it is removed in the STRICT doctype.
>
>>> I think that you are confused as to your purpose. If you are
>>> developing an intranet application and just happen to be using
>>> http/html to do it, then use javascript.
>> This app is for the internet at large. I want to write good HTML, and
>> decided much earlier to use STRICT.
>
> Good html, for use on the world-wide-web never ever under any
> circumstances uses the target attribute.
>
> Your misuse of terminology betrays your misunderstanding. You think you
> are making an application, but applications are not part of the wwweb.
> If you are making an application, you can do what you like, but you
> should be aware of which users you are excluding. Conversely, if you are
> developing for the wwweb, then you need to be aware what good web pages
> simply cannot do.
Don't worry about my (mis)understanding of what an application is.
I have been a webdeveloper/databasedesigner/gamedeveloper for over 12
years now. Nothing wrong with calling a complex databasedriven bunch of
webpages a(n) (web)application.
But this has little to do with the subject at hand.
>
>> As far as I understood the reasoning behind the STRICT doctype, it was
>> all about reducing the mess that HTML had become. So I really try to use
>> CSS in the way w3c has visioned, and remove a lot of markup from my
>> HTML. And I like it. I simply wasn't aware of the fact w3c removed stuff
>> without reasonable replacement.
>
> Strict + css is about a logical change separating the presentation of
> information from the data and metadata itself. That means letting the
> html links contain the relationship between resources and letting the
> browser and user decide how to display them. You need to decide if you
> agree with this change. If you do, then use strict. If you don't, then
> use target.
True.
I cannot change the STRICT doctype.
I am merely claiming it was a stupid decision of the w3c.
Right now I am in the difficult stituation I have to choose between
STRCIT and TRANSITIONAL doctype.
And I liked the STRICT a lot and was planning on using it for every new
project I start.
And yes, that is my problem, not yours.
But that doesn't mean w3c screwed up. :-(
>
> viza
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
| 
XML Sitemap