target tag

[Eustace]

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

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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.

 

[Eustace]

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.


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

So what is the alternative solution in the Strict version?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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?

 

[Eustace]

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

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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&...html+document+into+another&btnG=Google+Search>

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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?)

 

[dorayme]

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.

 

[Lars Eighner]

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).

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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

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.

 

[Eustace]

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

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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.

 

[dorayme]

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


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!

 

[Eustace]

Did you actually reveal its URL? I forgot.


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?


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

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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.)

 

[Eustace]

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

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Doesn't copyright only go back 50 years?

No.

 

[dorayme]

Facts are true
statements that are directly observable.

This is not true.