- From: Mark Wubben <markwubben@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:04:04 +0200
Argh, sorry, folks.. I keep messing things up here. Must be the conversation view... On 5/13/05, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Despite this, people have the desire to make links a special class of UI > object that correspond to idempotent actions only. From a purely > mechanical point of view, this makes sense - after all one doesn't want > bots to follow links. From the point of view of that part of the web > that consists of interlinked documents it mostly makes sense. But from > the point of view of web applications, it doesn't make sense. It makes > no sense to require a webmail application to use a form element to open > each message just because doing so modifies the underlying database, > despite the fact that a link is an appropriate element to represent the > action. > > Fortunately for the UI designers, there is an acceptable alternative to > a link. It's <span> with javascript to provide the behavior. Even if > there was a way to ensure that links were _never_ used for > non-idempotent actions, you'd still see link-like elements used for such > actions. Unfortunately they'd have none of the semantic value offered > by <a> elements. And this, I think, is the gist of the argument here. I agree with James here, but what about you?
Received on Saturday, 14 May 2005 11:04:04 UTC