Silly little annoyances

[chrisvenus]

Sometimes people wind me up far more than they should do. From IRC (name changed fo other person, I am Death):

[19:09] <Rikk> Hence the onClick="return false;"
[19:09] <Death> but why the <a> in the first place?
[19:09] <JimmyJimJim-> Why would you do a return false?
[19:09] <Death> JimmyJimJim: its stops the link being followed
[19:09] <Rikk> Because it's set to a link event.
[19:09] <JimmyJimJim-> Then why have a link?
[19:09] <JimmyJimJim-> Chris you need the <a> for that JS tag
[19:10] <Death> for onclick? no you don't.
[19:10] <JimmyJimJim-> Yea you do.

[19:10] * Death goes to write a test page.

[19:10] <JimmyJimJim-> Whatever..i use it on my site. I hope I know hwo to use it by now.

[19:10] <Death> Its easier than the otherwise inevitable (yes it does, no it doesn't." :)
[19:11] <JimmyJimJim-> No it's easier to just ignore it altogether cause it's stupid to argue about something I use.


I don't know why this woundd me up but it did. I guess partly as a matter of professional pride. I earn my pittance as a professional web designer and having people tell me things can't be done when I have done them before and that I must be wrong because they have used it on their website it just makes me feel personally insulted. Its not about JimmyJimJim. I like JimmyJimJim and have had interesting conversations with her in the past on similar things. It just wound me up very much for some reason. Oh well. At least I know I am write having written a page to test it. (http://the.earth.li/~chris/onclickdemo.html) I suppose it is also that having told her she was wrong I just got "I can't be bothered cause truly I couldn't care less" rather than, oh yeah, sorry.

*sigh* Still, comic relief tonight. And bacon for dinner in a minute... Mmmm..... :)

Comments

Ooh

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

See, there was some point to all that... I didn't know that trick.

It disturbs me that IE doesn't change the pointer, though. That's a bit sneaky !