Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #18436

Re: Script in <a > tag in IE

Show all headers | View raw

Cezary Tomczyk wrote:

> W dniu 2013-02-10 13:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn pisze:
>> Cezary Tomczyk wrote:
>>> W dniu 2013-02-10 01:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn pisze:
>>>> Cezary Tomczyk wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> You have not said why.
>>>> True, because we have been over this ad nauseam here already.
>>> Hm, it would maybe good to collect all results of previous discussions
>>> somewhere in FAQ place, you know. I know that writing the same things
>>> over and over again is a maybe little bit waste of time.
>> Yes.  Thank you for your volunteering.
> 
> :-) I have created a site based on MediaWiki:
> 
> http://faq.jscode.info/index.php/Main_Page
> 
> If this can helps then site could be improved by adding new contributors
> and content. Otherwise just say: "Not this time" :-)

Thanks but no, thanks.  We have already discussed the problems of a Wiki 
approach; the arguments as to that, and my reasons against that, have not 
changed.  Conclusions reached from discussion which can be mutually agreed 
on should become FAQ Notes, editable only by very few people who can be 
trusted that they would not use their influence to propagate their personal 
opinions, in order to ensure integrity.

Besides, there are many misconceptions waiting to be promoted from reading 
the text that is already there because it is poorly worded and contains 
factual errors.

>>> Could be written like this:
>>>
>>> var doAction = function () {
>>>       addAttachments();
>>>       return false;
>>> };
>>>
>>> var m = function () {
>>>      var a = document.getElementById('mylinkelement');
>>>      a.onclick = doAction;
>>> };
>>>
>>> m();
>>
>> […]
>> This is not a matter of opinion.  There are good reasons why this is
>> harder to maintain bloat code – directly contradicting your thesis that
>> the separation would make a smaller footprint and would make things
>> easier –, and there are few if any reasons why it is not.  You can see
>> that when you count the number of characters required for implementing
>> either approach. You can see it again when you calculate the code
>> distance in either case. You can see it yet again when you consider the
>> compatibility of either approach.
> 
> Well, I never use event-handler attributes on elements.

So much the pity.  I use event-handler attributes whenever there is no 
better alternative, for the already named reasons at least.

> Just separate behaviours and logic.

You are under the delusion that “behavior” and “(business) logic” are 
separate things.  Business logic *is* the behavior of the application; what 
it does when it receives certain input.  Perhaps you meant to say “separate 
presentation and layout” (which can be a reasonable approach, but _not_ /per 
se/); still your confusing that already shows how little you actually 
*understand* of what you are talking about.

> For me is just easier for maintenance.

Each time you edit you will have to switch between the script code and the 
markup, even for tasks that require no more than a one-liner with an event-
handler attribute, and – proven already – considerably more (if done 
properly) with that so-called “unobtrusive JavaScript” approach.  How can 
*greater* code distance and *unnecessarily* *complicated*, *larger* code 
ease maintenance?
 
> Another thing is when user has no JavaScript* (for whatever reason) then
> HTML code is just slightly bigger to download. Not maybe big difference,
> but it is. Because contains event-handler attributes which will not be
> used when JavaScript is not available.

Your logic is flawed.  In general, you need *more* source code if you do not 
use event-handler attributes at all, to make it work reliably.  The user 
needs to download that *larger* code base the *same* as with event-handler 
attributes, *no matter* whether client-side scripting is supported.  
Browsers do not skip downloading script code when client-side script support 
is disabled, because it could be re-enabled afterwards.
 
> I wouldn't worry so much about some few kilobytes more in JavaScript
> files. There is more important in my opinion problems like: too much
> requests to server (files are not combined into one file, a lot of
> requests for some data, etc.), not efficient code, files not cached, etc.

Files (better: resources) are cacheable in both cases.  And you are 
*increasing* the number of requests if you move code to external resources, 
even when not necessary.  Again I ask you: Where is the logic in that?

>>>>> Also, I provided links that contains explanations "why not inline
>>>>> events". You do not have to agree with them.
>>>> I do not, because they are utter nonsense.
>>> Without any evidences I can not say that you have right. Anyway, let's
>>> leave it as is.
>> No, truth must be told, and you have not thought this through.
> 
> Unfortunately, I like evidences instead of trusting :-)

You should not and you do not have to take this on trust; neither should you 
take the statements of anyone else, including Douglas Crockford, on trust or 
even faith.  Look for *well-founded*, *provable* and *proven* arguments, not 
authority.  Keep in mind: An argument from authority is a fallacy, because 
the *assumed* authority can be wrong.  This is probably the best advice that 
can be given in this field where, due to a stream of beginners that think 
they are experts even after a considerably short exposure and experience, 
superficially logical sounding utter nonsense is commonplace.

I have pointed out to you again the evidence that shows why your assumptions 
are wrong, even though they should be obvious to a reasonable person.  All 
you need to do now is accept them so that you can evaluate them.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Script in <a  > tag in IE Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2013-02-07 14:32 -0500
  Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-02-07 20:47 +0100
    Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2013-02-07 15:08 -0500
      Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-07 21:20 +0100
      Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> - 2013-02-09 16:42 +0100
    Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-02-07 21:30 +0000
      Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-02-08 07:08 +0000
        Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-02-08 16:30 +0100
          Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-02-08 15:41 +0000
  Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-07 21:02 +0100
    Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-02-09 00:19 +0100
      Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-02-09 00:25 +0100
      Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-09 14:35 +0100
        Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-02-09 22:27 +0100
  Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-02-09 20:33 +0100
    Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-10 00:08 +0100
      Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-02-10 00:52 +0100
        Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-10 01:07 +0100
          Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-02-10 01:20 +0100
            Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-10 01:27 +0100
              Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-02-10 01:43 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-10 13:55 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-02-10 20:38 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-10 21:28 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-10 21:37 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-02-10 22:56 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-02-11 00:09 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-02-11 00:30 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-02-11 00:43 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-11 01:02 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-02-11 01:16 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-11 01:49 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-02-11 17:59 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-11 18:19 +0100
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-02-11 13:03 -0800
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-11 22:09 +0100
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-02-11 13:59 -0800
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE "Richard Cornford" <Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> - 2013-02-18 00:15 +0000
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 12:33 -0800
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE "Richard Cornford" <Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 00:59 +0000
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 07:54 -0800
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-22 02:00 +0100
                Re: Script in <a > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-22 01:12 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-11 01:38 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-11 00:48 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-02-11 01:09 +0100
                Re: Script in <a  > tag in IE Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2013-02-20 00:07 +0100
        Re: Script in <a > tag in IE dhtml <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> - 2013-02-11 07:30 -0800

csiph-web