Gez Lemon wrote:
> 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.
I understand the concept, and I don't think anybody would disagree with you.
Actually, that's why I thought Opera was a "smart" blocker, being able to
make a choice regarding 2 *separate* statements.
But I believe now that the reality is very different.
Jan said that the method was "processed", but I start thinking that in fact
the blocker skips the whole thing as it would in the presence of a script
error.
I believe if the return false statement is "ignored", it's simply because
the browser doesn't "get to it", it's that simple.
I just tried:
window.open(this.href);alert('whatever');return false;
and didn't get the alert box
I think this is an important point, because as you said, it breaks the
sequence.
Best regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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
******************************************************
