Another Frames / target question

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

I wish my 4.01 frameset to contain strict 4.01 documents. However the
validator is unhappy with the use of;

<a href="../index.html" target="_top">

for strict, but perfectly happy for transitional.

So, I take it that the use of target is banned from strict 4.01 but
not from transitional? Can someone say "yes" and tell me why frames
are completely verboten in strict?

Re: Another Frames / target question

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, npx@no.spam wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wonder why. Do you think any of your readers cares whether
your pages are "valid strict" or "valid transitional" or "invalid"?
This is a purely formalistic question. You should make your pages
better accessible to your readers - and that excludes frames.

Frames are a stupid concept from the last century.
You should get rid of frames as soon as possible.

I don't understand at all why certain authors insist on
"valid strict HTML 4" but want to retain frames.

In memoriam Alan J. Flavell /

Re: Another Frames / target question

Andreas Prilop wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Me neither.  There is nothing wrong about Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.

Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from < (404-comp.)

Re: Another Frames / target question

Andreas Prilop wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Neither do I, but it's quite possible to make the pages in frames Strict.
You just need to replace the use of the target attribute by onclick
attributes containing JavaScript code for setting the target.

There's nothing to be won - on the contrary, a page that might well work
with JavaScript disabled would stop doing that - but if people have nothing
useful to do, maybe such an exercise will prevent them from doing anything
even more harmful.


Re: Another Frames / target question

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:52:05 +0200 from Andreas Prilop <prilop4321>:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't understand why some people want to eat their cake and have
it. :-)

"Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal."
-- Heinlein

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
HTML 4.01 spec: /
validator: /
CSS 2.1 spec: /
validator: /
Why We Won't Help You:

Re: Another Frames / target question

Stan Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Perhaps the best American (or otherwise) writer ever. RAH was amazing.

I cried when he died.  And also when John D. MacDonald did so.  Those
are two of the three collections I keep every time I clan out my
bookshelves.  Heinlein, MacDonald and Asimov.  I even have a raft of
obscure stuff they wrote, short stories etc.  Even stuff they edited by
other writers.  If their names were on it I got it.

I'll be 60 in August.  I think it's time to start shutting down the PC
earlier and pulling some of those books off the shelves.

HTML and CSS are fun hobbies but, ya know, those dudes could WRITE!

Ed Mullen
If you believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.

Re: Another Frames / target question

Ed Mullen wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nice to meet you Ed Mullen

Jenn (from Oklahoma)

Re: Another Frames / target question

Stan Brown wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think it's rather understandable, up to the point where you realize that
it is not possible. In the cake issue, this usually happens before one's
tenth birthday. In this issue, understanding of DTD basics would be
required, and that's much harder, especially to those who won't even try.

It's a little more difficult to understand why authors insist on "valid
strict HTML 4" or "XHTML", but a crash course on memetics may help. If you
don't understand much of the crafts of the professional-looking society
where you are a wannabe member, it's best to pick up some of the most catchy
and common short terms and phrases used in the society and repeat them a
little more fanatically than the next man. Assuming you want to look
professional without making any serious attempt at learning, that is.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Oh, I thought _I_ invented the phrase. I must have read too much Heinlein:
the effects on my mind appear to be subliminal.


Re: Another Frames / target question

 npx@no.spam wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

'Target' is banned in the sense that it makes the Strict docs
invalid. It is not strictly banned in any other sense. Is there a
browser that you are concerned with, that has any sort of % use
today that does not nevertheless honour your intent in using
target within a frame setting? In a simple frames set up, you can
be completely correct with 4.01 Strict using links in the content
(or changing or dynamic) frame *without using target*.

But, as you probably know, it is often the idea - though not
necessarily so - that docs can open from the links in one frame,
in another (targeted frame). Usually the frame that does this is
a navigation frame. Links in the content or changing or dynamic
frame usually need no target attribute, the default place for a
link to open from one frame is the same frame. I mention this to
ease your worries about using Strict 4.01. You can use them to
your heart's content for the content part, you can avoid the
target attribute altogether for this purpose.

But the main stumbling block to the relevant total perfection is
in the use of a navigation frame. Little harm can usually come
from a simple navigation frame having a fixed transitional doc
content and nor from having a strictly and mildly invalid Strict
4.01 content. Generally in these matters, there is a
psychological worry. If you must use frames (with their
considerable drawbacks) perhaps best not to fret too much which
option you take. It does not matter.

As a matter of curiosity, is there any browser or device where
the fact of the tiny invalidity in nav.html has any practical
significance in:



Site Timeline