> > I tried linking to chrome from Outlook 2007, a gmail "application > shortcut", Firefox and a CMD window, all at the same time.on my Vista > 32-bit system. > > They each opened their own external chrome. Thus, if you don't count > the "application shortcut" there were four chromes running. > > I tried linking from Outlook 2007 again and, you're right, it opened a > new tab in the same chrome that was opened earlier by Outlook 2007. > But I found this acceptable because I could keep related tabs together > and remove all of them by closing the "Outlook 2007 chrome". When I > linked from Outlook 2007 again Vista opened up a new chrome.
Sounds to me like Outlook behaves the way you would like Thunderbird to behave, at least according to Alex. I don't really use applications like those so I have no experience to make any judgment calls about this issue, I just felt it necessary to point out this comment. Sounds interesting that it works in Outlook, but not in Thunderbird, have you tried this out, Chris? If this feature were to be implemented, I would most likely opt to turn it off. I like having everything open in one window, I find having multiple browser windows open cumbersome and much prefer that everything open in the same window. On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Chris Withers <[email protected]>wrote: > > Jim Davis wrote: > > You can right click on most URL and decide to open in new window or not > > from most applications such as Thunderbird, etc. > > You're "dead wrong", to use your expession. > > I just double checked and none of Thunderbird, Pidgin or Skype have > "Open in new window" as a right-click option for urls... > > > I have never seen an > > application that doesn't have some right click options for the URL. > > Surely it's good netiquette to actually try things before making such > sweeping assertions? > > > and often am. If you are just clicking on a URL from an application > > then opening it in a new window or a new tab would be dependent on that > > app NOT Chrome. > > Again, wrong. All the application does is ask the operating system > (windows in this case) to open the url. The OS hands the url to Chrome, > it's then up to Chrome what is done with it. > > > Below you say having an option for one or the other is > > not optimum. > > No, I'm saying an option that would make chrome do things all web page > authors aren't expecting would be bad. Read closely... > > Chris > > -- > Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting > - http://www.simplistix.co.uk > > > > -- Rahul --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
