Re: Browsers that *don't* support about:blank
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:46:37AM -0800, Tom wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:37:19AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:15:31AM -0800, 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).
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > He asked you to come up with a standard, so why aren't you looking
> > for that? Might be nice to come up with a list of "browsers that do"
> > and "browsers that don't", but you're still going to need to point to
> > an RFC to have a convincing argument. Good on the maintainer for
> > adhering to standards and not giving in to creaping feeturitus.
>
> How come y'all are being adversarial? I agree with the maintainer.
> I'm just curious what browsers support it :-) Jeez, grandstanding....
You know there are such things as "defacto" standards as well as
"dejure" standards. It is my contention that many browser authors have
found it useful to include "about:blank" primarily as a way of saying
"no start page." If it's not a standard, how come everybody's doing it?
The Romans couldn't think of the concept of zero, and thus doing long
division in Roman Numerals sucked. :-)
Did you know that in SQL the truth value of NULL = NULL is NULL. And
the group by statement groups together things whose equality truth value
is TRUE. Except it groups together NULLs :-)
People have trouble of thinking of things that aren't there. :)
Reply to: