Joel Birch schrieb: > 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.
Joel, I couldn't have said it better. You read my mind. -- Klaus _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
