Posted by Neredbojias on 08/02/05 15:18

With neither quill nor qualm, Andy Dingley quothed:

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:04:45 -0700, Neredbojias
> <neredbojias@neredbojias.com> wrote:
>
> >Even though I disagree with your last statement (below), this is the way
> >I do it. Why?
>
> >> This is not an appropriate task for JavaScript or PHP.
>
> So in what way is JavaScript useful here ? Unless you're running
> ASP/JScript, then I assume you're loading a shared external .js file
> with <script src="foo.js" > and having that execute when the page
> loads, then using document.write() to generate the menu. This of course
> fails when JS is unavailable.
>
> And document.write() is itself the wrong way to modify the DOM

Depends on how you define DOM. There's nothing any more wrong with
using javascript to modify a page than there is with using ASP, PHP,
Perl, or anything else as long as you have a viable fallback in case
javascript is deactivated.

>
>
> >Because it's faster and more reliable for the client.
>
> In what way is it "faster" or "more reliable"? It's worse on both
> counts.

I meant the "copy-and-paste" way, *not* using js/php, etc. What might
be termed "vanilla html (and css)" does seems to load faster and more
reliably overall.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]