>>>I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means using a library
obviously we're past that point. We've decided this was a good use for jQuery. So how can you say priorities are tangled here when you assume we're overthinking this because we're using a library. It sounds as though you're a bit anti-new, stay hard core javascript type of dude. If you're using javascript to make an entire application fine, but I'm in with the new and new to me makes sense. Unobtrusive is not overrated, it's good practice and it's a pattern as far as I'm concerned. On Oct 12, 10:35 pm, expresso <dschin...@gmail.com> wrote: > unobtrusive in this case is keeping javascript out of elements. > onclick= binds them together. > > On Oct 12, 9:39 pm, RobG <robg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 10:49 am, CoffeeAddict <dschin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am I wrong to say you should never use onclick in an element as this > > > would be > > > contrary to the purpose of using jQuery > > > I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the > > functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means > > using a library, then use it. If the library driving your design > > decisions, you might need to rethink using the library. > > > > which means onclick would totally > > > bind mark-up to javascript? > > > In a way that using a CSS selector to attach handlers doesn't? > > > > So it would not be unobtrusive in that case. > > > The concept of "unobtrusive" javascript (i.e. attaching listeners at > > the client, rather than the server) is an implementation methodology > > that has been much hyped but probaby creates as many issues as it > > solves. > > > -- > > Rob
