Re: Browsers that *don't* support about:blank
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:30:21PM -0500, Mental Patient wrote:
> 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.
Okay, then the correct action is *not* to file a bug against links
asking it to support about:blank. The correct action is to file a bug
against Mozilla asking it to remove support for it in HREF and frame SRC
arguments, correct?
As long as we care about being standards-compliant.....
/me ducks
> >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
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: