Does it not follow that to be "more consistent, logical, better
style, whatever." you should wrap your code in a function that is
called onload?
Isn't that what onload is for? being triggered after the page has
loaded?
On 29 Mar 2007, at 09:51, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
It is possible to place the script before </body> but having all
scripts
within the head is more consistent, logical, better style,
whatever. Except
for the reasons of coding style and clarity, having the script in
the head
prevents it from sneaking into the content displayed because the head
element is not rendered.
Weigh these arguments against the advantage of restricting deferred
scripts
to external scripts, which is, IMHO, null.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alexey
Feldgendler
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Apply script.defer to internal scripts
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:19:47 +0200, Kristof Zelechovski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The script embedded here is so short and specific that it makes no
sense
relaying it to an external location; however, if the script is not
deferred, the script fails with an exception at run time because
the
document body is not constructed yet.
What's wrong with simply placing it after </body>?
You do not place a script element after the body element:
3.6.1. The html element
Content model:
A head element followed by a body element.
Sorry, immediately before </body>.
--
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
