On 16/08/05, Thierry Koblentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm talking about a simple: > onclick="window.open(this.href,'myPopup'); return false;" > In this particular case, if you consider normal to arbitrary ignore the > "window.open" statement, then why do you consider "outrageous" to ignore > "return false". IMO, that's a smart way for a blocker to give control to the > user over the popups without killing the links. > I know Opera's blocker behaves this way, so if it violates ECMA-262 I > believe it's for a good cause ;).
In this example, Thierry, there are two completely separate statements. Programmatically, they're not dependent on each other, and should be executed sequentially. Any structured scripting/programming language that breaks the sequence construct is broken. It's a fundamental structured programming concept; statements are executed sequentially. If logic is required, then it should be added by the programmer using selection or iteration constructs, which may then cause the execution to take different paths. I would sooner programmers coded responsibly than have a browser that started to second guess what I was trying to achieve. The example I provided earlier is a good example of where the behaviour you're describing for Opera would be incorrect. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
