为什么使用`javascript：void（0）`而不是`javascript：`作为href做什么占位符？ [英] Why use `javascript:void(0)` instead of `javascript:` as an href do nothing placeholder?

问题描述

我曾见过 href =javascript：void（0），并且我看到 href =javascript：;是否有任何理由我不会仅仅使用 href =javascript：来代替？

编辑：让我清楚：我将它与 onclick 结合，并且不反对使用 return false 如果有必要使用替代方案。当然，这只是在替代方案比 javascript：更好的情况下。

另外，我还没有看到第一段中显示的问题（显然我认为）的答案。 谢谢，大卫。 ：）

我曾见过 href =javascript：void（0）我已经看到 href =javascript：;是否有任何理由我不会使用 href =javascript：改为

没有回答您的问题，但可能会更轻在它上面，当在 href 中使用脚本时，像netscape这样的浏览器的一些早期版本出现问题。

void 操作符几乎只是强制点击不做任何事。

现在，浏览器正确执行伪网址，您可以安全地使用 javascript：; 。

I have seen href="javascript:void(0)" and I have seen href="javascript:;" Is there any reason I would not just use href="javascript:" instead?

Edit: Let me make it clear: I am combining this with an onclick and have no objection to using return false if it becomes necessary to use the alternative. Of course this is only if the alternative makes better sense over javascript:.

Also, I have yet to see a answer to my question shown (clearly I think) in the first paragraph. Thanks, david. :)

I have seen href="javascript:void(0)" and I have seen href="javascript:;" Is there any reason I would not just use href="javascript:" instead?

解决方案

Doesn't answer you question but may shed a bit more light on it, some early versions of browsers like netscape had problems when a script was used within the href.

The void operator was pretty much to only way force the click to do nothing.

Now, with browsers properly implementing "pseudo URLs", you can safely just use javascript:;.

这篇关于为什么使用`javascript：void（0）`而不是`javascript：`作为href做什么占位符？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！