I don't know why this isn't working, but using window.open is a terrible practice.
What is wrong with: <a href="http://face..."; target="friend">Become a friend on Facebook:</a> If you do it that way it loads in a new tab, which is much faster than creating a new window, and doesn't irritate the user. Why would you want to create a window that is not resizable and without a location bar? That is just plain rude. Thank god all decent browsers ignore it. -John Campbell On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, David Roth <davidalanr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was successfully using Javascript code for years to open a new browser > window and assign it a unique name without any problems. That is, until now. > :-) > The following Javascript code works properly with any other website I've > tried, except for facebook.com: > > <a href="javascript: void(0)" > onclick="window.open('http://facebook.com/USERNAME_GOES_HERE', > 'windowname1', > 'width=600, \ > height=500, \ > directories=no, \ > location=no, \ > menubar=no, \ > resizable=no, \ > scrollbars=1, \ > status=no, \ > toolbar=no'); > return false;">Become a friend on Facebook:</A> > > The above action, will open a window, but if the visitor to the web page > clicks on that same link again, it opens yet another new window. It > shouldn't do that, because 'windowname1' should simply cause the user to > bring that window up front, not create a duplicate window each time the link > is clicked. > I have tried variations of the above code, but they all fail as I described > when it comes to facebook.com, but works well on many other websites I > tried. > I'm not a web browser guru, so I can only guess at how the internals of it > work for assigned 'windowname1'. But here is my theory and I'd greatly > appreciate comments on this. I suspect that when facebook.com is loaded it > immediately renamed the assigned window to some unique window name perhaps > with embedded UNIX time stamp to make it extremely unique. If my theory is > correct, is there any way to have your own window name be used instead? Or > is there some other Javascript coding method to accomplish this with > Facebook.com that someone is just itching to tell me about? If my theory is > wrong about facebook.com, can someone explain why they might be doing this > and what advantage is there to Facebook.com being more difficult than the > other websites? :-) > Thanks in advance, > David Roth > > _______________________________________________ > New York PHP Users Group Community Talk Mailing List > http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk > > http://www.nyphp.org/Show-Participation > _______________________________________________ New York PHP Users Group Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk http://www.nyphp.org/Show-Participation
