Mozilla sides with Microsoft against Google IE
Mozilla has joined Microsoft in questioning the logic of a new Google plug-in that turns Internet Explorer into Google Chrome. But unlike Redmond, the open source outfit actually presents a well-reasoned argument. Last week, Google released a plug-in that equips Internet Explorer with the rendering and JavaScript engines at the …
and it is *hilarious*, Google should knock it off!
Removing root from Android? Suing developers? Compromising competitors browsers? I hope that various regulatory bodies start looking at Google like they already look at Microsoft.
it has to be said that if it were not for Microsofts *deliberate* attempts to fragment and then monopolise the browser market in the first place then this situation would never have come about.
I think Google should simple stick with the "Please use another browser" message and do to IE users what other websites have been doing to the rest of us for years.
Google should not be "helping" Microsoft have a modern working browser. All they have to do is make their site with whatever tech they want. Say, YouTube, GMail, Docs. Then if the user visits the site with a browser that can't understand the public standards that most other browsers do, then just tell the user so. "Your browser lacks the capabilities to display this site. Please see this list of some of the most popular browsers that are capable of this." When MS finally gets a browser that is capable, then it gets added to the list too.
As far as I can see, which might be not much, this would make one of two things happen: either MS gets off their thumbs, or IE loses market share (imagine the average punter trying to see the latest YouTube gem a mate recommended and getting a "your browser sucks" message). Either is a good enough idea, methinks.
At first look Wave appears to be THE killer web 2.0 app. If MS is not on the bad wagon so be it. There are plenty of other browsers that will work just fine.
A plugin to ie that fixes MS's browser layout woes? Damn.... Ill have to download this and check. I wonder if I can set my site to silently install this thing... IE bugs cause breakdowns (nervous ones). There browser is woeful and they adopt web standards like a Boa constrictor, leaving many casualties.
Hell this morning I had a client who had ie8 zoomed a little, she couldnt select the right result from google searches, or logon to facebook without zooming back to 100% as the object clicks where not being reported properly.
The sooner this steaming pile is killed the better off we'll all be. This pulgin sounds perfect.
Make the dam thing work properly but be open to malware will move people to other browsers. Stealth enough downloads and us Web developers wont have to hack around the IE bugs
I wonder how long before MS updates something that hobbles it.
Is for a large number of website developers to ban people coming to their websites using IE 7 or lower. (Me I just ban all internet explorer, but I'm a jerk).
Give them a link to Firefox or some other browser and ask them kindly to use something better. Something easier to develop for.
IE almost passed acid3!?! I must be tripping!
Ha ha! Just as Bill Bailey said about US and UK international policy, MS is the playground bully and Mozilla is his skinny mate. When MS threatens to duff someone up, Mozilla leans from round the back and waving fist in a pathetic, weedy sort of way, says "Yeah and you get some off me too!"
...just a few months ago MS was desperate for someone, anyone to write plug-ins for IE, saying how easy it was to develop for in a vain attempt to get people to stop making plug-ins for FF. I believe it was mocked on the el reg comments page.
Who would have thought that google would go an do this, MS sure changed their tune on plug-ins for IE pretty quick. One minute they are desperate for people to make them, the next they are going on about how dangerous plug-ins are and hinting that they are for people who put babies in microwaves.
If anyone has actually started writing a plug-in for IE, I bet they're having doubts now. If it actually makes MS look bad they will turn on you. I remember a few years back some guy made a plug-in for visual studio, following MS encouragement. Problem was that it made MS look bad as the plug-in was so good.....he had his day in court and lost.
then why do they host IETab and Coral IETab on their FireFox addons site? IETab does for Firefox and IE what Googles plugin does for IE and Chrome!
// Paris because there's something I'd like to plug-in her.
// AC because I'd never be able to plug-in again if the missus saw this!! LOL
After all, it's not that long ago that MS secretly installed a plug-in for Firefox to make it behave more like IE - in other words, less secure :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/01/ms_firefox_extension_row/
They should stop trying to hijack each others' products and just promote their own browsers on their own merits.
Google crap is Nazi designed with your personal information and browsing habits collected for use and sale by Google. How many semi computer savy users have got a Google this or that and can't get rid of it? Now they want to make it worse... install and die. That should be the motto.
Google Chrome Frame reduces the functionality of Internet Explorer's plug-ins, and most likely ActiveX controls like Terminal Services, just the same as one cannot use Firefox add-ons in an IETab. Sounds about right.
But is the difference the power level of the user? Most users who use IETab are rather savvy, but I dare to say that the majority of users who will use Chrome Frame will be a polar opposite, having been sucked in by the "Chrome is more secure than IE!" scare tactics which have already convinced many of my customers to use a browser which will not work with many of the services they need to use, or that damnedable Google Toolbar which blocks pop-ups of legitimate sites without notification which would allow the user to bypass the blocksa as necessary.
Maybe there are informational notifications along the way, but obvious the mass of users with which I deal have missed them. And in the end, do we not have to take our audience into account when presenting a product?
Paris, a difference in user power.
that you're not programmers and only have a limited understanding of what you can do with certain tools, you think that because you can login as root into your server and do bash commands, you can solve world politics.
Well, here is a programmer (that'd be me for those of you who didnt cotton on yet) who might try to explain you a few things.
Firstly, passwords, etc. It's perfectly possibly for an ActiveX plugin to access the password system through API calls and obtain the information, therefore if you make a Google Chrome ActiveX plugin, then unsurprisingly, you can make that plugin talk to the password system inside Internet Explorer, so their plugin could use the google chrome api to save passwords, but behind the scenes, replace that with actually pushing and pulling the information from the internet explorer system, after all, as long as the API accepts the same data and returns the same result, it's not important how that information is stored. If internet explorers methods are secure, then googles will be by default, because ultimately, they ARE the internet explorer methods. Just with a different face.
Ok, secondly, this is just the first version of this plugin, but don't be surprised to see more advanced tools and features coming soon that allow you to turn on or off Chrome depending on the site you are visiting, you already need a metatag in some cases, so it's not like, you install it and then bingo, you're running chrome, it just means that you CAN run chrome and those two things are different, get a grip people.
Thirdly, please apply the first point to any other stupid argument you might have that says, it can't plugin to other features from internet explorer, it's perfectly possible through API calls to do these things, thats why ActiveX has a bad reputation, because a single flaw, can expose your system to that plugin and everything that can happen, might happen, but any feature that required internet explorer to call a function in the system to perform some action, google chrome can do it too.
So why don't you linux nerds and "information technology experts" take a load off and go play with grub or install some other useless desktop environment (I wrote this using KDE btw, thats before I switched from GNOME, because of it constantly crashing)
But there's already a plug in for Firefox that is essentially IE Frame for Firefox, but I haven't seem Mozilla giving out about that.
Banning individual browsers is the wrongest, most retarded "response" there is. Make your site obey the standards, and don't try to get cute or clever by checking (and rudely denying) which user agent the user chooses to use. It's none of your flipping business.
Back in the 90's, when the web was young and Javascript was primarily used to make clocks follow your mouse pointer, it was quite common to encounter web sites that required the user to download and install extra software in order to view them.
I can't understand why Google didn't do this with Wave. If Wave truly is the next major milestone application on the Intarweb, just like Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube before it, why didn't they stick up a big notice (to I.E. users) saying that it only works in real browsers, with big, colourful links to Firefox, Opera and Chrome's official sites, trusting that Wave itself would be desirable enough to be worth the download.
Perhaps The Register could collar someone at the big-G and ask them *why* they chose the Chrome Frame route instead of the far-less-controversial: "Get a Better Browser" route, for Wave.
I agree with Mozilla's opinion - Chrome Frame isn't good for the web. As long as Chrome Frame exists, it is not possible to steal I.E.'s market share by releasing a killer-app that only supports real browsers.
Honestly, I think we should be hearing a resounding "Phew" from Redmond. If Wave truly is all it's hyped to be, Google let them off lightly.
I don't even care if it's legal or moral or if RMS approves - I'll support anything that helps to kill off IE. Just think of the man-hours currently being wasted on work-arounds for IE rendering bugs. If we could have all that time back, we'd be on Web 3.0 by this point.
.... Google release a frame replacement plugin for Firefox
"....Wave appears to be THE killer web 2.0 app....."
Yeah, right. Based on a draft of HTML5 and I'll bet a sack of cash that if Google don't like where the standard ends up going, they'll stick with "their version" rather than reegineer the thing (like it'll matter, we'll all be using Chrome or Chrome plugins anyway, right?).
This looks more like IE6 2.0 rather than Web 2.0 from where I'm sitting.
Evil Bill, 'cos he invented this strategy.
IE 6 runs on legacy Operating Systems like Windows 2000, which can't or won't run anything newer from Microsoft, but Google Chrome doesn't support Windows 2000.
So where does that leave us ?
Another fail !
Or only half a Fail ?
ALF
@Martin Owens 03:07 GMT
> Is for a large number of website developers to ban people coming to their websites using IE
> 7 or lower. (Me I just ban all internet explorer, but I'm a jerk).
>
> Give them a link to Firefox or some other browser and ask them kindly to use something
> better. Something easier to develop for.
Isn't the idea to enhance the user experience, not wind them up so they don't want to use your product anymore?
It's all very well expecting Tecchies to come back on another browser, but most standard users I know barely know what a browser is.
All they know is that they connect to the internet using the icon on the desktop.
At the end of the day if I want customers to use my website, I need to make it accessible to THEM, not me.
...imagine if Microsoft made IE load the web version of Office instead of Google apps when you visited the Google apps site.
No doubt Google would be crying their eyes out about that...
so let me work this one yout
you can use "IETab" to put an Internet Explorer tab into your Firefox.
then you can install the Chrome Frame and run Chrome within the IE Tab?
all some bright spark needs to write is a "FFTab" plugin for Chrome and you could then close the loop FF >> IE >> Chrome.>> FF ... time to asplode...
Oh my that would be so much fun
Mozilla sound right on this, but I hope they're confidently diversifying their sources of cash!
Google seem to be somewhat confused. Shirley this plug in will actually hinder the takeup of Chrome?
Or are they playing to the regulators on this? If they stick with the "use another browser" message then the regulators might see it as a ploy to make people install Chrome, but if they punt a plugin then they can say that they are not forcing people to abandon IE. Either way Microsoft would cry foul.
And of course Mozilla will side with MS on this one. Google's presence on the net is huuuuuge, as such the chances of Chrome getting a massive userbase are big. And who will suffer most? Mozilla. A majority of people using IE are using it because it's the default on their PC and will never change. However most Firefox users are using it as a choice over IE. These people will probably at least try Chrome. How many will come back?
Cue loads of flames from the Mozilla faithful telling us all how Mozilla will save the planet and that Chrome sucks and blows at the same time. Yawn!
The problem with you developers is you rarely read the requirements properly.
The point in the article is that using the chrome plugin, when you get to a passworded site the mechanism is "unknown". It wasn't compaining that it was using IE. The point is that it doesn't HAVE to use IE's security mechanism, which might or not be great. It could just plonk your passwords in a plaintext file "password.txt" on the root of of www.gmail.com. Who knows what it's doing.
Supposing it does maintain a local secure password store it could well use it's own. In which case, if you unplug chrome, then you don't know where those passwords have gone.
Similarly if you set up some sort of rule in Chrome to protect yourself somehow, cookie handling for example. Does that apply to IE. What if it's a web5 feature that you've turned on or off, will that work in the current version of IE? No. What happens when you upgrade IE, will it import settings from chrome or will you loose it? Probably.
From a "user" point of view, they won't understand the distinction between changing settings in a plugin within an app and changing settings in the app itself.
KDE eh, what's wrong with CDE, twm or fvwm? KDE=bloatware, don't even get me started on gnome. Where do you think KDE came from, evolution of those environments. Where does gnome come from, evolution of other environments. "useless" maybe, in the same way that evolutionary steps are "useless". Independantly, yes they are useless, but you can't get to the end of a journey without taking some steps along the way.
"Waaaaaaaa....!" So Microsoft, "Embrace and Extend" you said, Although you really only meant it applied to you and you never vocalised the extra bit "...and Extinguish". And now it's happened to you. "Waaaaaaa....!"
Of course two wrongs don't make a right and Google's action may have extreme consequences but it's highly ironic that Microshaft, of all people, are making noises about how third party's plug-ins in to their apps will 'break' them.
I believe they dont really care, they just wanna kill IE and if a plugin for IE does it, then so be it, even if it means they still use the IE shell, the rendering engine is the enemy, not IE, internet explorer in itself is rather similar to firefox, it's the engine behind it that causes everyone to have anal sex everytime they write a website.
So the shell, who cares!
Is Google just getting desperate because Chrome is languishing a long way behind Firefox and showing no signs of taking off like FF did?
I trust Google less and less these days. I have to wonder what sort of spying Google Frame will do on your browsing.
real developers make sites work in the crappest of browsers
even i have a vm image of xp/ie6 to make stuff work propperly for the poor saps who have to use ie6 due to company policy
*grumble* sites that say "works best in browserX" are as bad as flash only sites *grumble*
to paraphrase asr
"this comment is best viewed with Netscape 4.7 for UNIX/X on a 1280x1024 resolution with 24-bit color depth, maximum contrast, minimum brightness, in a 1000x960 window placed in the exact center of your display with this window manager configuration
with a colour temperature of 9300K using barco phosphors and connected to an AGP Matrox G200 via 5 individual RG179B/U coax cables with a contact resistance less than 0.1 mOhm..."
Owen
"Imagine having the Google browser-within-a-browser for some sites, the Facebook browser-within-a-browser for Facebook Connect sites, the Apple variant for iTunes, the mobile-carrier variant for your mobile sites - all injected into a single piece of software the user thinks of as his or her 'browser,'" she continues
But surely the whole point is that if a) Google's Chrome plug-in is installed or b) IE finally adopts HTML5 properly then these others don't *have* to develop their own plug-ins because every likely browser will render their standards-compliant websites properly.
And if it's a toss-up between trusting Google's security or Microsoft's.....
has your comment actually said anything? or just replied a bunch of waawwwwwwwwwwwwww
from what I understand, you have basically said, if you install chrome, you can never be sure HOW it does anything, so how can you be sure it's doing the right thing, or the wrong thing.
Considering you arent a developer (your first line gives it away) I will point out the obvious to you, you can apply the same arguments you just put, against internet explorer itself, how do you know they arent storing all the passwords on microsoft.com/supersecretarea/passwords.txt?
I will tell you how you can know, packet sniff the connection, or attach a debugger to chrome, or how about just go and look for yourself.
You arent even very clever, twm and fvwm are not desktop environments, they are window managers, like metacity is a window manager, but gnome is the desktop environment, hilarious! you dont even know what you are talking about, then say it publically, I guess thats why you are anonymous coward right?
CDE? pfff, sun can piss off if they think ANYONE takes that seriously anymore, Gnome is just a crap desktop environment as you can get, can you format removable media from nautilus yet? (after 10 years), KDE is a joke too, but it crashes less, statistically speaking anyway :D maybe not for you, but for me, gnome is like a bunji rope, bouncy bouncy.
Jees you guys, you all whine and moan and then at the end, don't even say anything constructive, nothing you said changed anything or challenged anything I said, what was the point in replying? just to show your "friends" how clever you are?
I guess they arent smiling with you :D
Er...no, at first look, Google Wave looks nothing like THE killer Web 2.0 app. It looks more like another bit of tedious Web 2.0 mumbling. Realtime online collaboration with a few extra-special multimedia bells and whistles? Well whoop-de-doo, it's not like we've ever heard anyone flogging that kind of idea before. Even assuming that you want it in the first place.
The Web 2.0 killer app - when it arrives - will have to be something new and wonderful that no-one has really thought of and that shedloads of people will want to use. Not just some Google-sponsored, HTML5-crippled rehashing of old ideas that is only likely to be of long-term interest to a more limited audience. Let's face it, most of what Joe Public wants to do in the way of "realtime communication and collaboration" they can already achieve using mobile phones, old-fashioned Web 1.0 and the existing, over-hyped, not-so-killer-after-all, killer apps of Web 2.0 (yes, Mr Facebook and Mr Twitter, I'm looking at you. And does anyone know why Mr MySpace and Miss Bebo seem to be missing from class today?)
Web 2.0, full of Fail and badger's paws as usual.
HTML5 is not a standard, why is it being rolled out at all? Mozilla, Opera and Google et al are doing to the web what IE6 did with their non-standards implementation.
Bash the standard out, get it ratified THEN implement and roll it out.
Until the W3C places the rubber stamp on HTML5, no one should be using it for anything other than research/training. Opening HTML5 sites to the public is just madness - what flavour of HTML5 do you support, what tags are available, how do they work, what do you do when it changes? Utter madness.
For all those railing about IETab on Firefox, there is a difference between it and Chrome Frame: Although the Mozilla group did not directly create the IETab, they may condone its use--ON THEIR OWN BROWSER. That is, it is their decision, and their software. They are not, however, (and they'll probably object to) offering nor promoting an IE plug-in, such as "FFTab", that turns IE into Firefox. That is the difference.
If, on the other hand, Google were adding an "IE Frame" plug-in to their own browser so that users get that crappy IE experience they are so used to, then nobody would complain; they'd probably just point and laugh, but not complain. However, they are actively promoting the bastardization of a browser that is not owned by them, in order to indude the use of their own browser.
Think about that for a second. Mozilla does not object to a plug-in on /their own browser/ that runs as someone else's browser. Google promotes a plug-in on /someone else's browser/ that runs as their own browser. Do you see it now?
-dZ.
Your post is highly condescending, and reveals a rather unpleasant holier-than-though attitude which funnily enough I only ever seem to get from junior developers. Looks like you'd not be much good at politics either. Still, at least you can say you're running Linux at home eh? Well done.
you know what, I prefer to start with something, than wait until 2020 then start.
the problem with web development now, is that the browser wars are over and nobody can just open up the east front with a nuke anymore, everyone wants to do things through the standards committees.
These same committees who take 10 years to do ANYTHING, then when they do something, make a huge fucking mess of it, have you ever tried to make a div span the entire height of it's container? and when the container changes height, the div expands or contracts with it?
Is this rocket science? Then why can't I do something as simple as this? Oh wait, I know why, because instead of making css for computers, they made css for PRINTERS. The entire model is DTP orientated, from top to bottom, never from bottom to top, never from right to left, only left to right.
Sure you can hack these things, but you have to hack and do a lot of things to get something simple, the one thing they forgot was, that on computers, people want to do MORE than just print documents on the screen, they want to build interfaces and all kinds of cool shit.
Now you know why some developers are wondering if canvas is the answer to some of these problems, or whether flash sites are done that way because it makes simple things simple, rather than the hacky mess I have to write to get something stupidly simple working.
The w3c can go suck donkey dongs if they think they are doing a good job. Ok, one of the committee doesnt agree, fine, but they stall for 10 years? NOT FINE!
Lets just open up the war again, let everyone extend in any way they want and cooperate when they want, it's the only way you'll get a decent web experience in 10 years, even if you do have to live with some pain, life is pain, get used to it.
(sorry, this turned into a rant, it's not explicity directed at you, but your question provoked it :D lucky you!!!)
What I am sick of, is unqualified opinion and there was a lot of it here.
condescending or not, I'm qualified to speak, are you? anonymous coward tells me that perhaps you're just another 'tard with a grudge because I outed you.
If so, then I'm glad you think I'm condescending, where in the world does it say I have to treat you with respect? respect is earning, if you act stupid, you shall be treated as such, if you act clever, you'll be treated with respect as a reward.
Junior developer? Oh ok, thanks for your insightful opinion on this mattter. Actually I'm a programmer for 10 years and I have a body of work online to prove it, just websites to show, but thats where the money is nowadays, you can see it here: http://www.antimatter-studios.com
To anyone thinking about hiring me or not for their next project, think about it like this, would you prefer someone who has been called (but might actually be a cool guy) condescending but knows what they are talking about, or someone who is "polite" but hasnt a fucking clue which one of their fingers is responsible for using their digital watch?
Hard choices these days with the crisis isnt it??
Anyone else? I mean, I have a brilliant idea!!! Why dont you reply to the CONTENT of what I said, instead of making stupid comments about the WAY I said it. But these are the interwebs, so I guess I can expect more.
Breathe dude, breathe.
If I install Chrome, I can have a reasonable level of certainty as to how it will do stuff. I can also tweak this to suits my needs.
I can also have a reasonable level of certainty how IE will do stuff. I can tweak this too.
Note: I may wish for IE and Chrome to behave differently depending on what I use them for.
What does Chrome Frame in IE do? Does it use the Chrome way, IE way, both, neither?
What if the settings are in conflict, how does the plug-in resolve them?
How do you explain all that to a typical end-user who thinks "Google" is their internet provider and don't know what OS they use?
You think an average user will know how to sniff packets, or even what a packet is? Here's a clue, the average end-user does not know and does not need to know. Only professionals and enthusiasts need to know, for everyone else the PC is just an appliance like their washing machine. And just like the washing machine certain, basic steps should be taken to ensure safety and ease of running.
I don't like the plug-in because HTML5 is not yet ratified and I think anyone pushing non-standards onto the web is an idiot of the highest order. yeah, it may all be cool, wow, look-what-i-can-do; but when the standard shifts and changes, it just leads to pain. IE6 levels of pain.
And kindly save the petulant ad hominem attacks, they do nothing to bolster your argument.
...worried about Google Chrome Frame for Firefox?
twm FTW.
Chris Thomas "Alpha"?
"To anyone thinking about hiring me or not for their next project" - don't worry fella, noone having read your turdspurts here will be.
Reading through the comments people seem to overlook the reason google have released frame as a plug-in. It's purely down to user privileges on their work machines. The majority of people at work are stuck using IE6 and wont be allowed to install any other browser, so saying tough and linking to other browser sites will do nothing.
Linking to a plug-in that allows you to see the content suddenly allows some of those people stuck on IE6 the chance to view the website. Facebook, Twitter and such like are only big because people use them when they should be working, so you need the IE6 users to stand any chance.
Of course some people wont have permission to install plug-ins either, but you're never going to get everything your own way.
This doesn't necessarily take anything away from other points raised here, or mean they're not evil and out to get our data; but you can't moan about google making an IE plug-in, as they have no other way to get to the corporate IE6 people.
yeah man, need to calm down :D like I said at the bottom, I wasnt really directing that at you, just started to reply, in fact, only the top sentence really applies directly to you the rest, is just talk.
as for your questions, all of this can be answered by asking the right people or by inspecting the code if it becomes released, the problem is not that you don't know, it's that you don't know NOW, I guess for some thats a problem, but I am also guessing that google isnt so retarded to do something that breaks internet explorer, I am going to guess that google wants the user to see as little difference as possible, with the exception that their websites render better.
my comments about sniffing packets, are directed at professionals who need to know what it's doing, not the end user, all the end user needs to know is the result of the professionals work, is it compatible or not, if the professionals who look say yes, then the newbie at the computer should care anymore, just use it and be happy.
about html5, life is pain, we already have it, chrome doesnt make that pain increase, it makes it decrease, try not to think of html5, try to just think about html4, if you had proper standards support for THAT and also, html5, wouldnt you think it's a winner?
any site that supports html5 will be rendered or not, but the browser? it's nothing to do with it, if it has better html4 support, you win everytime. So I dont see html5 as being part of this discussion really, if you consider the benefits to html4 that chrome brings, you'll see it's a winner.
as for my petulent comments, if people wanna start putting their names like you and me to arguments and then putting foward decent points instead of arguing against the person, instead of the argument, I guess they will stop.
funnily enough, I only insulted a bunch of people who didnt have a clue what they are talking about, to me, thats acceptable.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.antimatter-studios.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
completely missed that point about twm NOT being a desktop environment, didnt ya :D
Well done, you've managed to look up "ad hominem" on wikipedia but you miss the Big Yin's point. He is suggesting (correctly) that you are making ad hominem arguments rather than responding to them. You might also want to find out the meaning of "rhetorical question" as I suspect the Big Yin's questions that you so thoughtfully answer, fall into that category.
BTW is English your first language?
"funnily enough, I only insulted a bunch of people who didnt have a clue what they are talking about, to me, thats acceptable."
What is it about the internet that people think that behaving like this is "acceptable"? Is it that difficult to engage with other people without insulting them?
hahahahahahahah, lol, if you visit that page, you get 1 single error and something I'm quite proud of.
Nobody has any clue why the w3c removed the target attribute from links, only that now the stance is that you must use javascript to define behaviour, instead of just being pragmatic, that actually, I dont want to add a javascript in order so about 1 links will open in new window.
validation, what most people seem to not realise, is just something to be proud of, if you can get the number of errors to zero, you get brownie points, but you think I am going to fuck about and do javascript JUST TO GET a link to open in a new window?
Are you serious?
REAL developers spend time on REAL problems, not those created by the idiots at the w3c, if you found a REAL error, like, using a <div> inside a <p> tag, then I would agree.
But the best you have got, is using an attribute that actually, I used ON PURPOSE and I know will break the validator and I don't care about it because I have better things to do.
You really think that single link, with a deliberate error, brings down everything I have said?
I bet you are the kinda guy who feels proud at putting those stupid w3c and XHTML logos at the bottom of your page? I did, in 1998, but ten years later, I dont, you know why? Because ultimately, nobody cares, if I had made some serious error, I would agree, instantly. Nowadays it's important your page renders according to the standards, but dont let standards run your life, use your brain, the standards are not so you can turn your brain off, hit a button and get the green ok, standards are for setting your way of developing so that in the future, you can be sure what you wrote is usable and clean and understandable and renders correctly. They are not for making wanking points in online chat over a single error that LOTS OF PEOPLE AGREE WITH.
But you are not going to get far by saying the target attribute is deprecated and therefore we must be using javascript.
There are lots of valid reasons why I want to use target and lots of valid reasons why it shouldnt be deprecated and javascript isnt the best solution, but the "purists", the guys who spent 10 years writing those appauling specs that everyone loves so much, decided to remove it.
Good effort, but unfortunately, no cigar.
Anyone else?
