Redesign of dlang.org

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 24/04/14 00:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> They don't work.
>
> But...maybe they're only intended to be single-page-only examples? (Now
> that I think about it...)

Yes. Bootstrap won't touch your links with JavaScript, unless you tell 
it to.

> If so, then I must have misunderstood the examples. The fact that
> they're all pointing to different anchor links threw me off and made me
> assume they were supposed to be functional. (I'm accustomed to blank
> zero-length anchors being used to indicate "intentionally non-functional
> placeholder link".)

Yeah, I don't know why they do that.

> But I have noticed a lot of the sites that use anchor links to switch to
> completely different pages are basically broken. Since the very
> *beginning* of HTML, links have always been downright trivial to
> implement, and have always been considerably *easier* to *not* require
> JS. It's pretty much the single simplest, easiest, most fundamental
> thing in HTML. And yet, more than a decade now after <a onclick="...">
> linking inexplicably appeared, some people are *still* trying to
> implement links using JS. It's insane.

I hate that as well. Sometimes I come to a page, with JS disabled, and 
it's completely blank. Then my thought process goes something like this: 
"Hmm, is it loaded. Yes, strange. Oh right I've disabled JavaScript. 
What is this pieces of crap, can't they design a web site without JS".

> However, you'll have to pardon that little rant. When I posted that
> "Apparently they can't even manage make basic links work properly", I
> swear it wasn't my intention to do another JS-rant. Coming from me, JS
> rants are pretty much redundant at this point ;)

No worries :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg