anyway,
your idea is not bad, i'll take a look at it.
loading js is quite simple
var e = document.createElement('SCRIPT');
e.src = js;
e.type = 'text/javascript';
//I don't think this has an effect
if(defer) e.defer = true;
document.head.appendChild(e);
or you may use mootools Assets class.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Thierry bela nanga <[email protected]>wrote:
> if you request js with ajax and eval it, if there is a document.write,
>
> the content of your page will be replaced by what you write.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Michal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I completely agree that document.write is bad (that's why I called it
>> a hackish method), but I'm unfamiliar with your reason about the blank
>> page, can you explain?
>>
>> Michal.
>>
>> On Jan 8, 10:42 am, "Thierry bela nanga" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > using *document.write* is bad and should be avoided when you use ajax,
>> >
>> > you may have a blank page when you evaluate an expression after the page
>> has
>> > been loaded.
>> >
>> > instead you should use dom manipulation to load your js file.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michal <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > If it's ok for me to chime in. I use a way to minimize flashing (which
>> > > I use and like), and a bit of hack to completely remove flashing
>> > > (which I have used in the past, but I think no more). Both of these
>> > > leave content accessible to search engines and users without
>> > > Javascript.
>> >
>> > > To minimize flashing:
>> > > - In the CSS, create rules starting with ".js" that hide all your
>> > > content that you want hidden if JS active
>> > > - On domready, add the class .js to the body element. If this is the
>> > > first domready listener, this should minimize flashing.
>> >
>> > > To completely remove flashing:
>> > > - Has a CSS file with style that hides the content you want hidden,
>> > > but *don't* put this in your page.
>> > > - Instead, in the head section of your page, include a Javascript file
>> > > that uses document.write that writes the link tag to the page. This is
>> > > hackish, and won't work if the page is sent as application/xhtml+xml.
>> >
>> > > By the way neither of these methods are mine, but I forget where I saw
>> > > them.
>> >
>> > > Michal.
>> >
>> > > On Jan 8, 9:46 am, "Thierry bela nanga" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > I had to make a choice,
>> >
>> > > > All the content is present on the page and is available to search
>> bot,
>> > > but
>> > > > some parts are hidden to avoid flashing and they are displayed by
>> > > removing
>> > > > the .hidden class.
>> >
>> > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:07 PM, CroNiX <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > You care if your site content is available to search bots but not
>> > > > > visitors? Strange...
>> >
>> > > > > On Jan 7, 6:55 am, "Thierry bela nanga" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > > yeah but,
>> >
>> > > > > > I use JS to build the page (tabs, etc), without it you'll have
>> an
>> > > ugly
>> > > > > > content. the content remain available for search bots that's the
>> most
>> > > > > > important for me.
>> >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Guillermo Rauch <
>> [email protected]>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > Which makes the content unavailable for people with CSS on but
>> JS
>> > > off.
>> >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Thierry bela nanga <
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > > > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > >> my method to avoid this is to hide content initially with
>> css, i
>> > > > > define a
>> > > > > > >> class .hidden {display: none} and then I use the domready to
>> > > remove
>> > > > > the the
>> > > > > > >> class.
>> >
>> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:01 PM, keif <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> FUC = Flash of Unstyled/Unrendered Content
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> This cropped up mainly because of an alphaPNG script,
>> extended
>> > > > > > >>> elements script, and a couple other scripts that modifed the
>> > > page.
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> On Jan 5, 7:46 am, Michal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>> > FUC?? I think maybe I'm not that good with those internet
>> > > > > acronyms....
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > On Jan 5, 12:32 pm, keif <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > With putting scripts at the bottom, it's been more of a
>> > > "YMMV"
>> > > > > > >>> > > approach - I can't find the yahoo article, but it's been
>> > > > > discussed
>> > > > > > >>> > > more than once that many people say "put it in the
>> footer"
>> > > when
>> > > > > it's
>> > > > > > >>> > > not a practice they follow themselves because of certain
>> > > issues
>> > > > > (one
>> > > > > > >>> > > thing I've noticed, loading all JS in the footer causes
>> FUC
>> > > > > > >>> > > sometimes).
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > -keif
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > On Jan 5, 5:38 am, Nicolas Trani <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Hi,
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > @Michal :
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Putting scripts at bottom speed up your page loading,
>> i
>> > > suggest
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > >>> > > > read this :
>> > > > > > >>>http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#js_bottom
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > @Wanlee :
>> > > > > > >>> > > > I suggest you to continue to use domready anyway.
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Maye be you can post a page to show your code?
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Regards.
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Michal a écrit :
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Are you saying that 'domready' fires too early,
>> before
>> > > the
>> > > > > html
>> > > > > > >>> is
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > ready? This sounds strange. It could be:
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > - A bug with domready. I suspect this is unlikely as
>> this
>> > > is
>> > > > > so
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > heavily used and tested. But if you can construct a
>> > > testcase,
>> > > > > > >>> post a
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > bug in lighthouse.
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > - A bug with your code somewhere: are you sure
>> everything
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > accesses the DOM is inside a domready listener?
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > I have seen advice somewhere on the internet that
>> says
>> > > you
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > >>> put
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Javascript at the bottom of the html, but it's never
>> > > quite
>> > > > > sat
>> > > > > > >>> well
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > with me, it seems a bit hackish, but I don't quite
>> know
>> > > why.
>> > > > > I
>> > > > > > >>> always
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > put it in the head, with a domready. Maybe others
>> have
>> > > other
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > suggestions...
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > There is the 'load' event, that waits for all images
>> to
>> > > load
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > >>> well,
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > you could try that, but I suspect that there is
>> something
>> > > > > else
>> > > > > > >>> afoot.
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Can you post a link to the page you're talking
>> about?
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Michal.
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Jan 5, 8:32 am, wanlee <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> I'm writing a few functions for sliders and json
>> > > requests
>> > > > > and it
>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> appears that the javascript is loading faster than
>> the
>> > > html
>> > > > > > >>> causing
>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> the slider to not initialize. it doesn't happen on
>> every
>> > > > > page
>> > > > > > >>> load but
>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> more so in safari.
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> moving my script tags to the bottom of the html
>> solves
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >>> problem. is
>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> this normal or could there be something wrong with
>> my
>> > > code?
>> > > > > > >>> should i
>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> use something other than 'domready'?
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> take swing!
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > --
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Nicolas Trani - web engineer
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Weelya - Improve the web
>> > > > > > >>> > > > 32 rue du faubourg boutonnet
>> > > > > > >>> > > > 34090 Montpellier
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Tel/Fax : 04 67 169 778http://www.weelya.com
>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Notre agence sera fermée du 12 au 16 janvier 2009
>> >
>> > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > >> fax : (+33) 08 26 51 94 51
>> >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Guillermo Rauch
>> > > > > > >http://devthought.com
>> >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > fax : (+33) 08 26 51 94 51
>> >
>> > > > --
>> > > > fax : (+33) 08 26 51 94 51
>> >
>> > --
>> > fax : (+33) 08 26 51 94 51
>>
>
>
>
> --
> fax : (+33) 08 26 51 94 51
>
--
fax : (+33) 08 26 51 94 51
