Seen the rant. I agree that links to content should be, at their core, plain links that would, absent JavaScript, take you to a new page with the content, said behavior then available to be modified by JavaScript to do something else, preferably without making the core behavior inaccessible even in JavaScript-enabled contexts. If I were writing the page, I would go further along the principles of non-intrusive JavaScript and not use the "onclick" attribute in HTML, either, but instead assign the link an ID and then have initialization code in an external script file set its onclick property.
But not everyone is me, and not all web authors are as reluctant to mix code in with their markup, and the javascript: protocol is a handy way to get "behavior" instead of "content" out of a link. Contrary to the youngpup rant, even if I had absolute power over all web authors I would not ban javascript:. I would suggest that it be used only for the more purely behavioral functions - things that look like buttons or widgets and not normal hyperlinks, which only do things within the page rather than opening up a different page (even in a popup/tooltip), etc. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
