Valid to use <a> (anchor tag) without href attribute?

Question

The <a>nchor element is simply an anchor to or from some content. Originally the HTML specification allowed for named anchors (<a name="foo">) and linked anchors (<a href="#foo">).

The named anchor format is less commonly used, as the fragment identifier is now used to specify an [id] attribute (although for backwards compatibility you can still specify [name] attributes). An <a> element without an [href] attribute is still valid.

As far as semantics and styling is concerned, the <a> element isn't a link (:link) unless it has an [href] attribute. A side-effect of this is that an <a> element without [href] won't be in the tabbing order by default.

The real question is whether the <a> element alone is an appropriate representation of a <button>. On a semantic level, there is a distinct difference between a link and a button.

A button is something that when clicked causes an action to occur.

A link is a button that causes a change in navigation in the current document. The navigation that occurs could be moving within the document in the case of fragment identifiers (#foo) or moving to a new document in the case of urls (/bar).

As links are a special type of button, they have often had their actions overridden to perform alternative functions. Continuing to use an anchor as a button is ok from a consistency standpoint, although it's not quite accurate semantically.

If you're concerned about the semantics and accessibility of using an <a> element (or <span>, or <div>) as a button, you should add the following attributes:

<a role="button" tabindex="0" ...>...</a>

The button role tells the user that the particular element is being treated as a button as an override for whatever semantics the underlying element may have had.

For <span> and <div> elements, you may want to add JavaScript key listeners for Space or Enter to trigger the click event. <a href> and <button> elements do this by default, but non-button elements do not. Sometimes it makes more sense to bind the click trigger to a different key. For example, a "help" button in a web app might be bound to F1.

I think you can find your answer here : Is an anchor tag without the href attribute safe?

Also if you want to no link operation with href , you can use it like :

<a href="javascript:void(0);">something</a>

Yes, it is valid to use the anchor tag without a href attribute.

If the a element has no href attribute, then the element represents a placeholder for where a link might otherwise have been placed, if it had been relevant, consisting of just the element's contents.

Yes, you can use class and other attributes, but you can not use target, download, rel, hreflang, and type.

The target, download, rel, hreflang, and type attributes must be omitted if the href attribute is not present.

As for the "Should I?" part, see the first citation: "where a link might otherwise have been placed if it had been relevant". So I would ask "If I had no JavaScript, would I use this tag as a link?". If the answer is yes, then yes, you should use <a> without href. If no, then I would still use it, because productivity is more important for me than edge case semantics, but this is just my personal opinion.

Additionally, you should watch out for different behaviour and styling (e.g. no underline, no pointer cursor, not a :link).

Source: W3C HTML5 Recommendation

It is valid. You can, for example, use it to show modals (or similar things that respond to data-toggle and data-target attributes).

Something like:

<a role="button" data-toggle="modal" data-target=".bs-example-modal-sm" aria-hidden="true"><i class="fa fa-phone"></i></a>

Here I use the font-awesome icon, which is better as a a tag rather than a button, to show a modal. Also, setting role="button" makes the pointer change to an action type. Without either href or role="button", the cursor pointer does not change.