On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Nicholas Zakas <nza...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > I don't think readyState as Kyle describes is an appropriate candidate > mechanism because it's not an actual indicator that the functionality exists. > The only thing you can really be sure of if readyState is "uninitialized" is > that the script element supports readyState. The fact the only browser > supporting this presently is the same one that supports the desired behavior > is a happy coincidence. There's nothing about the presence of readyState in > general or the particular value that gives any explicit indication that > adding the script node will result in a particular download/execute behavior. > You may as well test another well-known IE property like (typeof > ActiveXObject == "object"). > > The thing I like about my proposal (with of course, the obvious bias that it > is my proposal), is that it's easy and unconfusing to determine if the > browser supports delayed execution by testing for the presence of > script.execute. > > Even if my solution isn't the best one, I do believe the best one needs to > follow this model of explicit feature detection.
I agree. I don't think that the readyState mechanism is particularly simpler. Another nice thing about the noexecute design is that it is purely opt-in, which means that you don't risk poor on already existing pages. / Jonas
