Re: Browsers that *don't* support about:blank
Tom wrote:
I filed a wishlist bug against "links" asking for it to support
about:blank (highly useful in frames pages as a default for the "body"
frame).
Thats an abuse of side effects and its usefulness is debatable. A highly
useful default page in a frameset is one with relevant CONTENT. If you
really want a blank page, create a blank page.
Maintainer closed it as a nonstandard feature, but asked me I could
point to a standard. Do you know of any significant graphical browsers
that don't support "about:blank" by returning a blank page? I know they
all handle other "about:xxx" commands differently.
I think what he meant was as standard as in some sort of accepted and
somewhat followed document like say... an RFC or w3c standard. In other
words some sort of guarentee that is less subject to interpretation than
my-browser-does-it-this-way. In addition to browsers, how are spiders
that make an attempt at doing frames supposed to support about:blank? In
other words, what does it offer to the world at large as a standard that
can be relied on and is different from a blank page? If its just a way
to avoid 3 html tags, is it really even worth creating a patch and
supporting? Further, if you did use about:blank for a page and at some
point MS decides to make about:blank an msn page, opera decides to sell
advertising space on about:blank and konqeror points to kde.org/news,
who is right?
Beides. When I start links with no arguments, I get a blank page. Whats
the problem? You should file a bug against whatever site uses
about:blank as content.
--
Mental (Mental@NeverLight.com)
"The Torah... The Gospels... The Koran...
Each claimed as the infallible word of GOD.
Misquoted, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied.
Maybe that's why he doesn't do any more interviews." - sinfest.com
CARPE NOCTEM, QUAM MINIMUM CREDULA POSTERO.
GPG public key: http://www.neverlight.com/pas/Mental.asc
Reply to: