- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:10:52 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
"David Woolley": > > (by email as it's been a bit laboured on the group.) > > > > "David Woolley" > > > > <a href="chicken.html" target="chicken" onclick="if (window.open) > > > > window.open('','chicken')"> > > > > > > I think you need to explicitly return false in the no window.open > > > case. > > > > No, as then the link will do nothing meaning that the link is a do > > nothing link - surely bad - to script enabled with javascript people > > I got that the wrong way round; you need to explicitly return true in the > no window.open case, and explicitly return false in the window.open case. > Assuming that no return works as return true, this will put chicken.html > in both the popup and mail window. No it won't unless you are talking about the current theoretical browser that supports window.open (completely non-standard) but not target! (Incidently this is a Frequently Asked Question of the usenet group comp.lang.javascript and the solution I gave is the agreed answer and many of us do consider accessibility), it doesn't have any accessibility problems, the window.open doesn't give a url to open in the window that is purely from the A HREF tag, return false/true does (certain browsers ignore it.) > In general, I would say the correct approach for W3C would be to ensure > that there are declarative ways of doing the presentational things that > people want to do, like popups. As well as being too powerful for > security, scripts cause problems for machine processing by third party > tools (which includes search engines!). I entirely agree, although some of us do have machine processing javascript tools - http://jibbering.com/accessibility/snork.html does some accessibility testing of scripts for example, and I have robots which are perfectly capable of understanding javascript. Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 19:35:35 UTC