XP Service Pack 2 KILLS window.open()

window.open() GONE ?

[RegGFX]

With the release of Windows XP Service Pack 2 Microsoft has Disabled the window.open()
See link and click on Pop-up blocker
[microsoft.com...]

YES SAY FAREWELL TO THIS FUNCTIONALLITY and other similar window opening scripts within I.E. Now Developers have to find other ways of opening a new window in their Websites for users that use XP Service Pack 2
I’m looking for an alternative way to open a new window WITHOUT using window.open()

From reading Microsofts Developer info it would appear that one could still open a window by clicking on a link or graphic but they are vague as to whether the use has to enable pop-ups…
TWO Burning Questions?
1) I would like to know if the Forum is aware of this and What are some work-arounds I could try?

2)Is anyone using XP Service Pack 2 and still able to actually open a window via link/button or graphic?
If this is true then i'm not really worried. I just need someone who is running XP SP2 to confirm this or suggest a work around.

Microsoft is telling Web Developers to review and recode their websites…. But at the sametime do not appear to come right out and offer a solution…. All they offer is a way to detect if a user is using XP SP2
Below is a link which Microsoft outlines a developer check list and telling them to redo their sites.
[msdn.microsoft.com...]

Someone please RSVP
Thanks

[Conard]

Using XP-2 and was able to open both of the new windows from the links in the original post.

[RegGFX]

hmmm interesting...

Is that with all the browser settings set to default? As a novice user would have their browser set too after installing XP SP2? - Developers would know how to diable the default settings... but not the novice IE User...
However from the previous links i've shared from Microsofts site... it does appear to Warn the Developer about usage of Active X type objects or even some forms of DHTML

Here is more interesting info about using window.open() or active X type objects in websites or applications.

Read this article by Quasimondo, at [quasimondo.com...] and then rethink your site if you're used to presenting the content in a pop-up window!

Forum thoughts?

[Conard]

That's with the default setting.
The next higher setting even kills target_blank windows.

[encyclo]

RegGFX, I think you misunderstand things. From the first link you gave:

What existing functionality is changing in Windows XP Service Pack 2?
Methods: window.open(), window.external.navigateAndFind(), showHelp()

Detailed description

In the Internet zone, the Pop-up Blocker blocks windows that are automatically opened by these methods without the user clicking a link. Windows that are opened by these methods by clicking a link might also be blocked if the customer has enabled the more restrictive blocking setting.

You can use

window.open()

as before on links which the user will click, just not for unrequested actions - much like the majority of popup-blockers available before.

[RegGFX]

actually No... its not a misunderstanding of things...
I've been reading the apparent PANIC of many about this Microsoft "FEATURE" in various forums and i was just trying to get 1ST hand knowledge from some... if you read the links you will see that even Microsoft is Cautioning the Developer to "Watch his/her CODE" and usage of Active X objects/Flash Objects and give tips... so i don't see it as a misunderstanding but rather a search to see if this is Fact or False... kind of like a search for Weapons of Mass Destruction...

Not a misunderstanding... just fact finding.

You would agree that from the reading of the info from MS knowledge base its always a good thing to check with fellow developer.... the there are more forum links out there than what i just showed you... now maybe they have a misunderstanding?..
Not me... just checking the facts about window.open() and some of the PANIC i'm seeing in forums across the internet... no harm in getting facts... right?

[encyclo]

Perhaps people should stop panicking, and then they'd have time to read the very clearly-worded documentation.

window.open() is NOT gone.

[RegGFX]

No... not gone but now it has a short Leash... perhaps this thread should have been named "window.open()GONE!?"

The web developer or Active X developer will just have to review his/her site and follow the security rules of XP SP 2 as Microsoft advises.

No panic here

"Cheers" and happy developing to all
:)

[tedster]

NOTE: I changed the "!" to a "?" in the title to avoid any "panic".

As a developer who makes liberal use of links that trigger window.open() onclick, I can assure everyone that this basic and widely used practice is not threatened. The new SP2 security features are pretty well thought out in the area of new windows.

It's true that a user can change settings and disable all new windows - that's also true with several other pop-up killer apps. But as we all know, the default settings are most likely to stay in place for the great majority of users.

[StupidScript]

Questions re: two items from the MS checklist:

Does your Web site launch automatic download prompts?
A file download prompt will be suppressed by the Information Bar if a Web site attempts to navigate to a resource that would have resulted in a file download dialog box being displayed when the user did not initiate the navigation with a mouse click or key press.

To ensure downloads are not suppressed, you can make all downloads the result of a direct user action.

This seems to indicate that sites (like sourceforge.net) which allow you to set a default download server from among many and then redirects to a "if your download does not start automatically, click this link" type page would need to redo the way their sites work so the user MUST click the link to get the download. Right?

Does your Web site contain files with file extensions that do not match their Content-Type?
If your site serves files that are handled by mime-handlers, the file extensions on those files should correspond to the same ProgID as the mime-handler. If the Content-type ProgID for a given file does not match the file extension ProgID, Internet Explorer in XP SP2 may take the following actions: 1) the user may be prompted to download the file and 2) the file will not be executed in the extension-handler if it fails to execute in the mime-handler.

We have our servers set up to use all .HTML extensions, even for SSI and PHP pages. When our server sends a .HTML file that was parsed with the PHP engine, what does that do re: this "suggestion"? Do we need to add a "content-type" META tag to every page, now?

If Microsoft made a more secure operating system, they wouldn't need to protect their browser users from these things. In RH9 Linux using Firefox, the "security problems" XPSP2 is "designed" (LOL) to correct are non-issues.

[encyclo]

We have our servers set up to use all .HTML extensions, even for SSI and PHP pages. When our server sends a .HTML file that was parsed with the PHP engine, what does that do re: this "suggestion"? Do we need to add a "content-type" META tag to every page, now?

Open up any page of your site in Firefox, go to Tools, Page Info. It should give the Type as

text/html

. If it does, you're fine.

As for the Sourceforge-type downloads, as I understand it, yes normally you will have to click the download link for it to work with SP2.

[py9jmas]

Does your Web site contain files with file extensions that do not match their Content-Type?

I just wish that Microsoft would finally realise HTTP has absolutely no concept of "file extensions". If you need to pass information about the format of a resource, you send the mime-type.

[StupidScript]

Whew! encyclo, you're correct. I get text/html with all of my pages.

I expect to be bummed about the Sourceforge-type redirects when they become disabled, tho'. (Assuming I accidentally find myself at a WinXPSP2 machine at some point in the future. :)