[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: