> -----Original Message-----
>
> On 11-Sep-00, Lamee Wouter wrote:
> >
> > Hello Chris, Gil, and others,
> >
> > Using JavaScript for submit-buttons does have advantages
> under certain
> > circumstances.
>
> Great explanations, and all true. However it misses the
> point of why they
> would use JS based buttons for LINKS. That's what I was
> bitching about.
> Not sure about the others.
If it's nothing more than just a plain and simple link that loads another
page, there is indeed no point, other than that both methods are legal and
part of widely accepted standards.
You can use JavaScript in links to do more or other things than load a page,
though. You can have something that is a (text or image) link behave like a
button which then executes whatever JavaScript you want (normal links and
buttons always want to load another page, which may not be what you want).
Or you can store some data in JavaScript objects or cookies before you go to
another page, or maybe decide which exact page to get when the link is
clicked. This allows you to have form-like behaviour without requiring CGI
stuff on the server, which reduces server load again.
Coming back to my original reply, imagine this (never mind this specific
example, keep it generic):
- If all Amiga browsers would fully support JS1.2 or higher, this problem
would have been unnoticed, right?
- Using JS for links is correct and standard-compliant JavaScript, right?
(Yes, it is even JS1.0.)
Now then, if you design web pages and someone complains that your page does
not work on their browser because it has not fully implemented the standards
you use, would you:
A. Possibly feel sorry for them but basically tell them to get a browser
with full support
B. Find out what subset of the standard their browser supports and try and
squeeze your code until it works on their semi-complete browser (which would
be equivalent to supporting Netscape Navigator v2.0)?
I am designing some web pages now that require (yes, require) JavaScript,
and am using AWeb for the development. Much as I hate having to stick to
JS1.1, AWeb has a fairly complete JavaScript engine and allows me to do the
development. Both IBrowse and Voyager simply do not have enough JavaScript
implemented to be of any use for serious JavaScript development. My point is
this: You can't go around calling someone 'lame' for writing correct and
proper code which your favourite browser does not support yet. The principle
is the same as calling the Voyager developers 'lame' for not having
implemented this feature yet.
What if the Voyager makers had decided to release their JavaScript-enabled
browser only when the implementation was complete? You wouldn't have had any
JS support in V now. On the Amiga, be happy with what you get, don't
complain about what isn't there yet.
> Chris
W.
_____________________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - http://v3.vapor.com/
Voyager FAQ....: http://faq.vapor.com/voyager/
Listserver Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=HELP
Unsubscribe....: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE
