>>61
Does it? Works just fine without. That's what
>>42 is talking about, JS should be used to enhance functionality but not to replace it and break things that would otherwise be very trivial to do. One big example is not being able to open a new window/tab to a link target. "But you can simulate that functionality in JS too," they say. Not often have I seen that actually been done, and this is unnecessary complexity for something that browsers, ever since they first existed as GUIs, could do naturally already.
Browser UIs have back and forward functionality, they have history, etc. They're well understood for navigation and easy to use. Similarly, links that you can copy and paste, that will always take you to the right location, also have this maturity. Those bloody in-browser sorted tables that have links at the top to sort by various columns are the worst offenders --- if I see a link, I should expect to be able to copy it, open it in a new window that has the content appropriately sorted, etc.
Web developers were complaining about frames a long time ago, claiming they're more complex. (4chan suffered too; compare how easy it is to navigate between boards with
http://www.4chan.org/frames instead of the little links at the bottom of each board.) But now they're adding even
more complexity at little benefit with these JS emulations of existing browser behaviour.