Re: little extension of BLink

Jacob Kjome <[email protected]> wrote:

> However, these values are not
> defined by the HTML4.01 spec that I can find.
I would disagree, see:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html#adef-target

quote: "The target attribute may be set for elements that create links (A,
LINK), image maps (AREA), and forms (FORM)."

> supported by the various browsers, but are not a standard.  In most
> cases, this use of the target attribute should be replaced with
> scripting anyway, especially in the case of "_blank" such as...
>
> <a href="foo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return
> false;">Foo</a>
Will not work when JavaScript is diabled, but target="_blank" always works
(as JavaScript is still a security risk, it is legitim that users want to
deacticate it).

> Also note that the case for having get/setTarget() in BLink is a
> questionable one.
Why? Since the methods exist why shouln't use them?

>  Take note of the examples described (in the
> Javadoc) for BLink's use; <a>, <input>, and <button>.
In my opinion the problem is that BLink mixes up to much. Sorry if I say
this, but the design is not the best. BLink should only be the counterpart
of <a> (and maybe <area>) element, whereas BAction should be the counterpart
of <input>, <form> and so on. As a consequence BLink should not extend
BAction. But I don't want to start a new discussion. I can live with the
status quo.

> than having a BComponent for every tag, but it does require diligence
> on the developer's part to keep from generating illegal markup.
It would be much better if the components functional specification wouln't
allow this, for example setTarget() on <input>.


Regards,
Thorsten