hi all, I am fairly certain some will take umbrage with my position here, so I've spun off a new thread to avoid pirating David's original. and for anyone who is offended, well, I have some experience here, so hopefully I can be forgiven for having an opinion. ;-)
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of using Jmol.js, or any javascript in fact, solely for the purpose of writing 'static' html or css to a page. (dynamic code is an entirely different matter. altogether.) first, it costs just as much to write out the function call, including all of its possible arguments, as it does to write the html or css itself. assuming you actually write the code instead of using an html authoring program. second, it obfuscates your code (on the majority of browsers). this makes it more difficult to debug, and for users to understand how your page works (and learn from it), and for *you* to understand when you go back to it in six months for an update. when someone posts a problem to the list, I like to take a look at the source to see if I can spot the error and help out. if the page is generated via complex (and needless) interweavings of javascript and html, frankly, I quickly lose my desire to help. third, it makes your entire page dependent on javascript. I know the buttons won't work anyway without js, but it is far from a moot point. I feel it is important to show the user what they *could* be doing if they had javascript enabled. nothing says that better than actually seeing the page in all its splendor - even if the buttons don't work. (a well-placed noscript tag can alert the user to this fact.) finally, it puts Miguel (mostly) in the position of having to support not only Jmol, but javascript, css, and html problems. I do not feel this is particularly fair, frankly. if you want to generate complex, highly stylized Web pages, you should do so directly and not depend on Jmol.js (or javascript at all). if none of the reasons above sway you, you should do it for yourself, as you will learn valuable skills that can be applied outside of a Jmol environment. to be honest, I would be very happy if Jmol.js simply provided a library of functions that initialize, return information about Jmol, send commands, etc. not a document.write anywhere; that would be the most flexible interface IMO. anyway, my two cents. regards, tim -- Timothy Driscoll molvisions - see, grasp, learn. <http://www.molvisions.com/> earth:usa:virginia:blacksburg "Life is just one damned thing after another." - Elbert Hubbard ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
