Right, I wronte v+e rather than l+e and vice-versa, post updated, new script
is here:
(function(s,o,l,v,e,d){if(s[o]==null&&s[l+e]){s[l+e](d,function
e(){s[v+e](d,e,!1);s[o]="complete"},!1);s[o]="loading"}})(document,"readyState","add","remove","EventListener","DOMContentLoaded");
it works!
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shade,
> you used the explanation rather than the minified version (which I am gonna
> test now 'cause it worked 'till now)
>
> the problem is that with the explained code you gonna create a global
> DOMContentLoaded function in Internet Explorer and its lovely buggy JScript
> engine (function expressions threat as named function declaration)
>
> if(document.readyState == null && document.addEventListener)(function(){
>
> // on DOMContentLoaded event, supported since ages
> document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function DOMContentLoaded(){
>
> // remove the listener itself
> document.removeEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", DOMContentLoaded,
> false);
> // assign readyState as complete
> document.readyState = "complete";
>
> }, false);
> // set readyState = loading or interactive
> // it does not really matter for this purpose
> document.readyState = "loading";
> })();
>
>
> Above snippet should be fine for IE too, now I gona check my manually
> minified version ... it's the same, it should work!
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Shade <get...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ummm... ammendment: The complete snippet works:
>>
>> if(document.readyState == null && document.addEventListener){
>> // on DOMContentLoaded event, supported since ages
>> document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function
>> DOMContentLoaded(){
>> // remove the listener itself
>> document.removeEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",
>> DOMContentLoaded, false);
>> // assign readyState as complete
>> document.readyState = "complete";
>> }, false);
>> // set readyState = loading or interactive
>> // it does not really matter for this purpose
>> document.readyState = "loading";
>> }
>>
>> But, the minified/re-arranged snippet (the 195 chars) Andrea provided
>> does not work. Do you own minification and you'll be fine, just don't
>> use what he posted.
>>
>> --Kyle
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 5:44 pm, Shade <get...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have confirmed in this test:
>> >
>> > http://test.getify.com/archive/dynloadjquery/index6.html
>> >
>> > ...that Andrea's proposed snippet does in fact "patch a page" to have
>> > a proper readyState, assuming of course the snippet itself is
>> > guaranteed to run before domready. The test includes it in a manual
>> > script tag at the bottom of the page, and then you can click a button
>> > to dynamically load jquery into the page, then click the other button
>> > to see if jquery's internal ready flag is set properly or not.
>> >
>> > I used a patched version of jQuery 1.3.2 (1.3.2.1 I called it) which
>> > only has the changes to the bindReady() function as they appear in
>> > GitHub right now (namely, the additional check for the
>> > document.readyState which John landed as a result of that previous bug
>> > I linked to earlier in this thread).
>> >
>> > I tested this just now in both FF3 and 3.5 (both windows), and it
>> > works fine.
>> >
>> > That means, that at least for now, even though patching jquery itself
>> > doesn't do much or help anything with the problem of being able to
>> > lazy-load jquery core, which my biggest concern/use-case, you can
>> > still "patch" a page to be able to lazy-load jquery. That's definitely
>> > an improvement.
>> >
>> > It also means that any code that relies on jquery's test (such as code
>> > that uses document.ready) is now also safe to lazy load right along
>> > with jquery core itself, as long as doing so in a "patched" page.
>> >
>> > I'm satisfied that this being included in LABjs will allow users to
>> > adequately load jquery.js on-demand without fear of the isReady checks
>> > failing later. The only caveat then will be that LABjs has to make
>> > sure it's there before dom-ready, but for all the use cases I care
>> > about, it's quite unlikely that people will use some other loading
>> > technique to lazy-load the Loader itself.
>> >
>> > --Kyle
>> >
>> > On Nov 18, 5:03 pm, Már Örlygsson <mar.orlygs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Am I right to think that there's a similar problem with the
>> > > window.onload event?
>> > > i.e. if you're too late in binding a handler to window.onload, it will
>> > > never fire?
>> >
>> > > --
>> > > Már- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> --
>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "jQuery Development" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=.
>>
>>
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=.
