> I usually try to eliminate as much of irrelevant prototypeism as
> possible when creating a testcase : )

Fair 'nuff, but I'd still use something other than inline to allow for
browsers being difficult about the closing body tag and DOM rendering
time.  Probably me being paranoid.  Perhaps (shock and horror) DOM0
window.onload stuff, image loading not being an issue:

<script type='text/javascript'>
window.onload = function() {
    alert('Found ' + $$('.wrapper .inner').length);
});
</script>

> at the time when <body> is definitely loaded
> and parsed.

Is it, definitely?  Within the tag?  (Serious question, you know more
about this stuff than I do.)

-- T.J. ;-)


On Jan 13, 2:17 pm, kangax <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 8:30 am, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Juriy,
>
> > That inline script could muddy the water in terms of DOM availability,
> > etc.  Perhaps a minor mod:
>
> I usually try to eliminate as much of irrelevant prototypeism as
> possible when creating a testcase : ) Why use "dom:loaded" (which is
> also known to be unreliable in IE in its current implementation) when
> we can simply run script at the time when <body> is definitely loaded
> and parsed.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> kangax
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to