Forgive my being nosy: which uses? a href="javascript:." is valid but it replaces the current document with a document parsed from the textual representation of the value returned from the script. In principle, you could do something to the page and replace it with a page that immediately goes back. While that would be acceptable, it would cause an uncomfortable flip of display. On the other hand, button onclick="javascript:." is invalid because the content attribute should contain the text of the script. Or should "javascript:" be treated as a label at the beginning of the inserted script? That would be weird. Best regards, Chris
-----Original Message----- From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:18 PM To: Kristof Zelechovski Cc: 'Ian Hickson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [whatwg] password option for window.prompt? On May 22, 2007, at 12:47 AM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote: > And besides, the bookmarklet uses the javascript protocol, which, > IIRC, is > designed to produce a new document on the fly, not to modify the > current > one. On the contrary, many uses of the javascript: URI scheme in web pages are used to modify the current page. The code in a javascript: URI is executed in an existing scripting context. Regards, Maciej
