Hi,

I have a little bit of JS which just replaces contents. What I do is have a real link to another page with contents for users without JS.
I put an id onto the <a> so that I can replace it's href value by a javascipt:functionname(); parameter. This happens onload.
The page validates XHTML strict, but is this accepted, because in reality I am just beding the rules. I wanted to know people's opinions on this.

Nope

it is perfectly correct and a good thing to do for accessibilty,

I don't see how you consider it's bending rules?
Who's rules and for what ?

Well as far as I know you're not supposed to have links that refer to inline javascript and such. I was just asking to make sure I have a good way of approaching this.

Well, it's bending in the sense that if you have a javascript link, you should have an HTML alternative. Something like this:

<a href="non-javascript-page" onclick="functionname()">Link</a>

Well Adam, if the user doesn't have JavaScript the href points to a web page that basically looks like what the end result of the JS would look like.

Then you're fine.

Yep, don't be concerned about it.

You are doing the transition the correct way around. Rather than rely on javascript being present, javascript is used to change the attribute.

So non JVM enabled user agents (including the validator and SE crawlers) get the standard href while JVM enabled devices insert the function call.

Ok thanks. I just always heard about it being bad, so the way I do it is good. So that's cool. Thanks.