« Return to Thread: Really Ugly?
Re: Really Ugly?
by thumblewend
::
Rate this Message:
On 01/02/2007, at 12:30 PM, Karl Swedberg wrote:
> I'd love to hear your opinions about this. With HTML/CSS stuff, I'm
> obsessed with standards and such. And one of the things that has
> always really attracted me to jQuery is its unobtrusiveness. I also
> read Jeremy Keith's DOM Scripting book and really appreciated his
> approach -- which is similar to what this commenter is suggesting.
> But I also love the super-fast development that can be done with
> jQuery and don't want to have to give that up if it's just a matter
> of someone's aesthetic sensibility being offended. I guess I just
> want to do the right thing.
>
Here is my current understanding of this issue. (Anyone, please
correct me where I am wrong). The main reason why innerHTML is said
to be evil is that it is not part of the standards. Therefore, if a
vendor creates a new user agent they may not decide to implement
support for it, leaving your web app or site broken and probably
adversely affected accessibility-wise. Whilst it is hard to imagine
any new browsers not supporting innerHTML as it is what some people
call a "pseudo-standard", I suppose it is not as hard to imagine
various new mobile devices and other unconventional browsers
supporting JavaScript but not what they may consider "extras" such as
innerHTML.
Also, if you ever want to serve the page as XHTML your script will
not work because innerHTML does not work for XML pages of course.
Personally, I have just resigned to using it when using jQuery
because the ease and speed benefits you mentioned are just too darn
seductive. The code is also much more readable so less-techy people
can possibly change the output easier.
I'll be interested to hear what other people think about this.
Joel Birch.
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
discuss@...
http://jquery.com/discuss/
> I'd love to hear your opinions about this. With HTML/CSS stuff, I'm
> obsessed with standards and such. And one of the things that has
> always really attracted me to jQuery is its unobtrusiveness. I also
> read Jeremy Keith's DOM Scripting book and really appreciated his
> approach -- which is similar to what this commenter is suggesting.
> But I also love the super-fast development that can be done with
> jQuery and don't want to have to give that up if it's just a matter
> of someone's aesthetic sensibility being offended. I guess I just
> want to do the right thing.
>
Here is my current understanding of this issue. (Anyone, please
correct me where I am wrong). The main reason why innerHTML is said
to be evil is that it is not part of the standards. Therefore, if a
vendor creates a new user agent they may not decide to implement
support for it, leaving your web app or site broken and probably
adversely affected accessibility-wise. Whilst it is hard to imagine
any new browsers not supporting innerHTML as it is what some people
call a "pseudo-standard", I suppose it is not as hard to imagine
various new mobile devices and other unconventional browsers
supporting JavaScript but not what they may consider "extras" such as
innerHTML.
Also, if you ever want to serve the page as XHTML your script will
not work because innerHTML does not work for XML pages of course.
Personally, I have just resigned to using it when using jQuery
because the ease and speed benefits you mentioned are just too darn
seductive. The code is also much more readable so less-techy people
can possibly change the output easier.
I'll be interested to hear what other people think about this.
Joel Birch.
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
discuss@...
http://jquery.com/discuss/
« Return to Thread: Really Ugly?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
