[thelist] Is Target dead

[Sarah Sweeney]

Tim Beadle wrote:
>>Deciding not to use the XHTML strict doctype simple because it does not 
>>support target seems like a very extreme solution to me. I think this is 
>>a case where people (like me) agree with what the W3C recommends for 
>>XHTML strict, and agree with /almost all/ elements and/or attributes 
>>that have been deprecated - except the target attribute :)
> 
> 
> Not at all! If you need target, use transitional. It's as simple as
> that!
> 
> Merely validating to a doctype is admirable enough*. It doesn't have to
> be the very latest one, you know.
> 
> Tim
> 
> * Because there are enough lame sites out there who either don't bother
> to set a doctype or, if they do, come nowhere near to validating to it.

True, but... it's the principal of the thing! :) And what about XHTML 
1.1+? I wouldn't want to limit myself to XHTML 1.0 Transitional simply 
because I want to use target, or more precisely, I want the behaviour of 
target. I've just found a new way to do what target="_blank" would do. 
Just like people who used to use the <font> tag - they're not (all) 
going to stick with an outdated doctype just so they can keep using it - 
they just find a new way to do what they used to do with <font>.

-- 
Sarah Sweeney
Web Developer & Programmer
Portfolio :: http://sarah.designshift.com
Blog, etc :: http://hardedge.ca