javascript pseudo-protocol and event handlers

[yawnmoth]

I've seen a few webpages that use the javascript pseudo-protocol with
event handlers. eg.

<input onkeyup="javasc ript: ..." />

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't onkeyup always supposed to be
javascript, anyway? As such, isn't usint hte javascript
pseudo-protocol redundant?

....or was it required on some archaic browser like Netscape 4.0 or
something?

[Randy Webb]

yawnmoth said the following on 6/23/2006 4:41 PM:

I've seen a few webpages that use the javascript pseudo-protocol with
event handlers. eg.

<input onkeyup="javasc ript: ..." />
Usually because they don't know better. Or, they are using VBScript in
the same page.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't onkeyup always supposed to be
javascript, anyway? As such, isn't usint hte javascript
pseudo-protocol redundant?
Depending on whether it is IE or not and what the default script
language in the page is.
....or was it required on some archaic browser like Netscape 4.0 or
something?

No.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Temporarily at: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hikksnotathome/cljfaq/
Javascript Best Practices -

[Matt Kruse]

yawnmoth wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't onkeyup always supposed to be
javascript, anyway? As such, isn't usint hte javascript
pseudo-protocol redundant?

Kind of redundant, but in reality it's a completely different meaning that
uses the same syntax by chance.

In an example like
<input onkeyup="javasc ript: ..." />

the "javascript :" is acting as a label, which is allow in javascript code.
So it doesn't create an error, even thouh it serves no purpose and is surely
caused by someone not understand what the javascript: pseudo-protocol is and
where it (used to) be used.

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

"yawnmoth" <te*******@yaho o.com> writes:

I've seen a few webpages that use the javascript pseudo-protocol with
event handlers. eg.

<input onkeyup="javasc ript: ..." />

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't onkeyup always supposed to be
javascript, anyway?
It's supposed to be the script langauge set as the Content-Script-Type
(e.g., <meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">)
but all browsers default to Javascript if nothing else is specified.

In IE, it's possible to have a default language of VBScript. In order
to allow event handlers in Javascript anyway, the prefix "javascript :"
will make IE treat the content as Javascript independently of what
the default language is.

In all other browsers it's just a label, which can be seen by this
example:
<div onclick="javasc ript:while(true ){break javascript;}ale rt('done')">
X</div>
click the X and see an alert in non-IE browsers and an error in IE
(unknown label).
As such, isn't usint hte javascript pseudo-protocol redundant?
If that was what it meant, it would be redundant. Actually, it's just
misguided.
...or was it required on some archaic browser like Netscape 4.0 or
something?

No, never. The only place where it has any use is in multi-script-
language pages written specifically for IE. In a page meant for the
internet, any occurence of "javascript :" should be considered a
problem[1]

/L
[1] Unless you are showing off your bookmarklets.
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'