I think I was talking about including CSS, and not Javascript in the head, but I guess the same/similar method can be applied.
I wonder, is it ok to access the head element, via document.head or Assets, before it has has even fully loaded? The point of my hack was to include extra CSS *before* the DOM has loaded, so there is no chance of any flash of content. Michal. On Jan 8, 11:40 am, "Thierry bela nanga" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
