Whether to use target="_blank" for outside link

[Ben C]

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.

I think the point of a reductio ad absurdum is usually to show the
premises are false. They might not look false on their own, so you show
that they imply something which is obviously absurdly false. If the
argument is valid that means the premises must be false since true
premises cannot imply a false conclusion.

 

[Ben C]

Scripsit dorayme:


Wrong.

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

To be fair the treatises weren't about markup validation or confused.

 

[+mrcakey]

(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

Fascinating dialectic discussion, however, look again:

2) I'm only proposing using frames to wrap external sites within your
own site navigation. I'm not in any way suggesting the rest of the site
should be built with frames.

6) It's obvious that you haven't built a site with frames for a long
time (me neither - they suck). To make your frames document work, you'd
name and target each frame individually. Using a target of "_blank"
would have the same effect as using it in a non frame document.

ergo

7) no longer holds true

et

8) does not follow

+mrcakey

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Ben C:

- -
To be fair the treatises weren't about markup validation or confused.

The quoted sentence is about markup validation and patently false.
Whatever else the treatises might have babbled about, they agreed on
this essential error and therefore surely babbled nonsense about
validation.

 

[Els]

... snip


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.

Well, maybe I didn't get it then. I thought I did, but then I guess I
got something slightly different, while thinking it was it.

Reading all that I snipped here:

[snip]

I think I now do get it though

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.

That was part of what I did get, so now I'm in doubt: did I get it the
first time, or didn't I? ;-)

I hear snoring... <g>

Wasn't me!

Now that I read the full explanation, I know it's not the same thing.

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.

Got it <g>

 

[I V]

Scripsit Ben C:


The quoted sentence is about markup validation and patently false.
Whatever else the treatises might have babbled about, they agreed on
this essential error and therefore surely babbled nonsense about
validation.

It's not patently false - it's true, but only given the context that
mbstevens and dorayme were using the terms "valid" and "well-formed" in
the sense that logicians use these terms, not the way in which the SGML
and XML communities use them. Of course, given that they were discussing
differences between two uses of the pair of terms "valid" and "well-
formed," it's important to be clear about which sense is being employed
at each point in the discussion. Still, I think it was clear in the post
itself, if not when a fragment is quoted without context, as you did.

 

[dorayme]

Fascinating dialectic discussion, however, look again:

2) I'm only proposing using frames to wrap external sites within your
own site navigation. I'm not in any way suggesting the rest of the site
should be built with frames.

What do you mean quite by "using frames to wrap external sites
within your own site navigation"?

A frame is a frame. Navigation is not some element or window or
box or house that has an inside and an outside. No I am not
trying to be funny or awkward. I am just asking.

Navigation usually refers to the provisions that an author makes
for a user to be able to get about his or her site. Typically it
consists of a list of links on the left (that could be in a frame
or not) that refer to the various main sections of the website.
And of further navigation in the sections pertaining specifically
to the section. This further navigation can be more left or right
panels or horizontal lists (that could be in their own frames or
not) in addition to the main left list. There can be what are
called bread crumb trails and then there is the chrome
(navigation built into browsers) itself with forward and back
buttons. In all of this, pardon me for wondering what it could
mean for one to to "wrap external sites within your own site
navigation".

(btw, you know that you can simply use target=_blank without
needing to bring frames in at all?)

6) It's obvious that you haven't built a site with frames for a long
time

O dear, is it that obvious? To think what a champion of them I
was once.

(me neither - they suck). To make your frames document work, you'd
name and target each frame individually. Using a target of "_blank"
would have the same effect as using it in a non frame document.

So you *do* know this! Why the frames then? Obviously I am not
getting your full meaning. It is entirely possible the penny is
not dropping for me. (It happens to me! Maybe my brain needs to
go fully decimal, the decimal currency is usually thinner and

ergo

7) no longer holds true

et

8) does not follow

(7) is a consequence of previous. It cannot simply be "no longer
true" unless something prior to it is no longer true. Now if you
want to attack an argument such as mine after understanding it,
you would be attacking where it goes wrong first surely?

Time for a fuller analysis by me! (I hear your groans and I feel
for you all... Boji! Wake up!)

(1) and (2) were what you said. (3) is surely quite
uncontroversial. And (4) is surely true enough.

(5) follows from 2, 3 and 4. At least nearly. Perhaps I could
adjust to make it more strict and phrase it as

"It is acceptable for most sites to use frames (from 2, 3 and 4)"

to better fit in with what you said. But this is a minor quibble.

I would have thought that (6) is pretty true under the proviso of
not wanting to use javascript.

Now 7 seemed to me to follow from 2 to 6. If it reasonable and
good to want something, namely to have a visitor stay close or
come back to one's page, and if the best means to it are legal,
then that something, in the circumstances, is a good thing too.

8 is a statement of the turnaround fortunes of 1. <g>

 

[dorayme]

I think the point of a reductio ad absurdum is usually to show the
premises are false. They might not look false on their own, so you show
that they imply something which is obviously absurdly false. If the
argument is valid that means the premises must be false since true
premises cannot imply a false conclusion.

Yes. In one of my replies I said "This type of argument is
sometimes called a reductio ad absurdum". Strictly a reductio
assumes the truth of something and derives an actual
contradiction by exact reasoning from it. There are some
breathtaking examples in mathematics going back as far as Euclid.
It is a beautiful thing to behold.

But my reply to gent who seemed to be in favour of frames for a
limited purpose of achieving OPs aim was not quite of this pure
kind. It was an invitation to reject his view expressed in
premises 1 and 2 because they lead, along with some very
reasonable other assumptions, to 7 and 8. Neither 7 nor 8 were a
direct contradiction of either 1 or 2. Its purpose was to say, in
a way, do you really think that the very clear consensus is that
using target="_blank" is a BAD THING is wrong? Naturally some one
could turn around and say yes.

Next time I will try to more carefully offer a strict reductio.
But I know there are several people ready to shoot me good and
proper if I were to go on to attempt it now... <g>

 

[dorayme]

Scripsit dorayme:


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

What treatises on it? I hardly even addressed the question of
html validation. It was a mere aside to a remark put by another
(which I suspect you have misunderstood by an unreasonably strict
assessment of the nature of the remark itself and of the
context).

The remark by mb meant something to him and to me. It being an
aside, it was not going to be explored in detail. It was accurate
enough for the purpose at hand, OT as it may be. But your ears
are finely programmed to catch anything said that, taken quite
literally, in a context of your own choosing, is not strictly
correct.

A difference was being pointed out between two quite different
contexts. For me at least, there is but an analogy between html
validation and the validation of an ordinary language argument.
In the one case, a machine can do it, in the other a machine
can't really do it well. The reason that a machine can do it well
in the one case is that it has clear cut rules to fail stuff like:

<p This is a paragraph. Not! <p/

<p This is a paragraph. Not! <p/

And what is meant by mb, with some reasonableness, is that
validator looks to see how various text is formed, there are
rules for when something is well formed.

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

Why not take the opportunity to make a summary of these in a
relatively easy to fathom form for the benefit of those who would
appreciate a hand in this matter?

 

[mbstevens]

The remark by mb meant something to him and to me. It being an
aside, it was not going to be explored in detail. It was accurate
enough for the purpose at hand, OT as it may be. But your ears
are finely programmed to catch anything said that, taken quite
literally, in a context of your own choosing, is not strictly
correct.

However he wants to spend his
_valuable_ time is OK with me.

I did gloss over that the validator will do limited things like
warning you of mistakes that are 'semantic'
-- like an h2 appearing before there is an h1.

As you point out, it was a side issue that had no direct
bearing on the rest of our discussion; the great bulk
of the validator's work is devoted to syntax checking.

A difference was being pointed out between two quite different
contexts. For me at least, there is but an analogy between html
validation and the validation of an ordinary language argument.
In the one case, a machine can do it, in the other a machine
can't really do it well.

Yes.
The ability of HTML to deal with what is
going on 'semantically' is incompletely specified.
In the case of the truth functional logic, the semantics are
_provably_ complete.

My point was that the two beasts are of different species,
that 'semantics,' and 'interpretation,' as used in HTML
is different, and just sloppier, than the terms are when
used in logic, although there may be some similarities.
I notice IV also pointed this out.

It is a shame, but unavoidable, that terms like 'semantics'
are being subjected to ----- semantic drift!

 

[+mrcakey]

What do you mean quite by "using frames to wrap external sites
within your own site navigation"?

A frame is a frame. Navigation is not some element or window or
box or house that has an inside and an outside. No I am not
trying to be funny or awkward. I am just asking.

Navigation usually refers to the provisions that an author makes
for a user to be able to get about his or her site. Typically it
consists of a list of links on the left (that could be in a frame
or not) that refer to the various main sections of the website.
And of further navigation in the sections pertaining specifically
to the section. This further navigation can be more left or right
panels or horizontal lists (that could be in their own frames or
not) in addition to the main left list. There can be what are
called bread crumb trails and then there is the chrome
(navigation built into browsers) itself with forward and back
buttons. In all of this, pardon me for wondering what it could
mean for one to to "wrap external sites within your own site
navigation".

(btw, you know that you can simply use target=_blank without
needing to bring frames in at all?)


O dear, is it that obvious? To think what a champion of them I
was once.


So you *do* know this! Why the frames then? Obviously I am not
getting your full meaning. It is entirely possible the penny is
not dropping for me. (It happens to me! Maybe my brain needs to
go fully decimal, the decimal currency is usually thinner and


(7) is a consequence of previous. It cannot simply be "no longer
true" unless something prior to it is no longer true. Now if you
want to attack an argument such as mine after understanding it,
you would be attacking where it goes wrong first surely?

Time for a fuller analysis by me! (I hear your groans and I feel
for you all... Boji! Wake up!)

(1) and (2) were what you said. (3) is surely quite
uncontroversial. And (4) is surely true enough.

(5) follows from 2, 3 and 4. At least nearly. Perhaps I could
adjust to make it more strict and phrase it as

"It is acceptable for most sites to use frames (from 2, 3 and 4)"

to better fit in with what you said. But this is a minor quibble.

I would have thought that (6) is pretty true under the proviso of
not wanting to use javascript.

Now 7 seemed to me to follow from 2 to 6. If it reasonable and
good to want something, namely to have a visitor stay close or
come back to one's page, and if the best means to it are legal,
then that something, in the circumstances, is a good thing too.

8 is a statement of the turnaround fortunes of 1. <g>

Slightly embarrassed that I had ambitions to be a writer at one point
and yet I can't explain what I mean without creating an example. So
here it is:

http://mrcakey.co.uk/blanknonsense.htm

Hopefully that is an "aah, so that's what the idiot was blathering on
about" moment! You send your user to a frameset within your own site
and within that frameset you load the external document. The top frame
("navigation") is used to return to your own content. Hence my
confusion over your assertion (6) that you can only reach an external
site using JS or target="_blank". In this example, (6) is not true
which renders (7) and (8) also false.

Of course it's not a very elegant solution but it's an option.

+mrcakey

 

[dorayme]

Slightly embarrassed that I had ambitions to be a writer at one point
and yet I can't explain what I mean without creating an example. So
here it is:

http://mrcakey.co.uk/blanknonsense.htm

Hopefully that is an "aah, so that's what the idiot was blathering on
about" moment! You send your user to a frameset within your own site
and within that frameset you load the external document. The top frame
("navigation") is used to return to your own content. Hence my
confusion over your assertion (6) that you can only reach an external
site using JS or target="_blank". In this example, (6) is not true
which renders (7) and (8) also false.

Of course it's not a very elegant solution but it's an option.

Ah! I see what you are saying. I had thought of _top just in the
last few hours (yeah, trouble sleeping...) and was wondering if
perhaps you might be meaning to use this in your idea! (I used to
use it a lot for frames to get out of the two frames I had and
let the user go to a non-frame home page).

Now, I know exactly what you were meaning by your original. It is
certainly not an illogical suggestion of yours (which is
different to saying it is advisable). I also understand now how
you might have been puzzled by my remarks. Please don't think I
was having *too much* weekend fun at your expense. <g>

I guess then it comes down simply to the advisability of (2). But
you did cover yourself on this by your emphasis on "have" in "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:..." in your first post.

I would have to rearrange things now if I was inclined to tackle
your suggestion in any similar manner! As the sobering reality of
Monday morning looms, I am waning in my enthusiasm for what you
called "Fascinating dialectic discussion".

However! (I cannot resist because it is even simpler now...)

(1) Most sites should not use frames

(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)

I assume you and I and most other folk these days would be
wanting to assert 1. Premise 2 are your words. Surely 3 and 4 are
also true. And it sure looks to me like 5 follows from 2, 3 and
4. Which contradicts 1. Something has to give.

And guess what it is? My guess is your 2.

 

[dorayme]

Ah! I see what you are saying. ....
(1) Most sites should not use frames

(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)

I assume you and I and most other folk these days would be
wanting to assert 1. Premise 2 are your words. Surely 3 and 4 are
also true. And it sure looks to me like 5 follows from 2, 3 and
4. Which contradicts 1. Something has to give.

And guess what it is? My guess is your 2.

Now the day's work is done, I return to say just one more thing
in case it seems I have been unfair to you +mrcakey: to be
perfectly frank, if you had said that *one way* to avoid
target_blank and achieve a result to keep an author's site in the
attention of the user even when going to an "outside" link would
be to _top to a frames page (as you have demo'd) then that indeed
would be an interesting point that most people would not have
considered.

But you added it was acceptable and that is where I disagree. If
you and others are tired of my reductios (have you lot no stamina
or patience with a simple Martian who is only here on earth to
have a bit of fun till popping off? <g>) then I have yet another
argument against the acceptability of it and it is this:

Suppose everyone did it! Suppose everyone did what you recommend
as acceptable. It would then have no effect. Take your demo. You
go to Wikipedia and the authors there have been reading this
thread and taken up your nice idea. So outside links in their
page would spawn further frames inside your framed page... and on
it would go. Is this a situation that is desirable? Surely not.

No, I am not kidding or fooling about. There is an important
principle, I guess you will make of it what you will, but it
roughly along the lines of what is good for the goose is good for
the gander. Or to put it more formally, if a thing is ok for one
person to do then it is ok for everyone in relevantly similar
circumstances to do. But in this case we get a very undesirable
outcome. Namely frames within frames within frames. I conclude it
is not a practically or ethically wise practice.

Compare this with the alternative practice, namely of making a
link to an outside site be simply a link and no messing about.
This is a policy that everyone can follow with no terrible
consequences.