 | |
Re: Internet Explorer XHTML window.onload issue
Javascript JavaScript language (comp.lang.javascript)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Internet Explorer XHTML window.onload issue -
12-18-2007
, 03:13 PM
|
Oh that's IE7 |
XHTML required here. Serve HTML 4.01 as text/html and many problems will go
away.
You should also use the standardized intrinsic event handler `onload'
attribute of the `body' element instead of the proprietary event handler
property `onload' of the host object referred to by the host-defined
`window' property of the Global Object (or another object in the scope chain).
BTW, ignore VK.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
You should also use the standardized intrinsic event handler `onload' attribute of the `body' element instead of the proprietary event handler property `onload' |
separation: to hardcode some function call into HTML/XHTML tags. What
exactly standardization body does suggest such approach?
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Dec 18, 11:13 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de wrote: You should also use the standardized intrinsic event handler `onload' attribute of the `body' element instead of the proprietary event handler property `onload' A very bad advise from the point of view of content-layout-scripting separation: |
reference to a Function object to `window.onload' (or performing an
equivalent), or the `script' element to contain a function declaration and
the `onload' property of the `body' element to contain a call to that
function makes no real difference. The script is always tied to and
tailored to the markup.
The real difference here is that the `onload' property is proprietary, and
both it and a standards-compliant equivalent would require feature-testing
for themselves, while the `onload' attribute is standardized as per HTML
4.01 (and supported long before that) and requires no feature-testing on itself.
PointedEars
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
You should also use the standardized intrinsic event handler `onload' attribute of the `body' element instead of the proprietary event handler property `onload' A very bad advise from the point of view of content-layout-scripting separation: Nonsense. Whether either the `script' element contains an assignment of a reference to a Function object to `window.onload' (or performing an equivalent), or the `script' element to contain a function declaration and the `onload' property of the `body' element to contain a call to that function makes no real difference. The script is always tied to and tailored to the markup. |
<body onload="someFunction()"> for each and any script on the page
will try to launch someFunction and it better be in the script and
really being the one needed onload. This way you create a hardcoded
link between your HTML structure and your script structure. In some
organizations it can be a conversion about the onload function name,
say Java-inspired init() as in my company but there is not such
convention on any wide run.
Quote:
|
The real difference here is that the `onload' property is proprietary, and both it and a standards-compliant equivalent would require feature-testing for themselves |
NN I said goodbye to it long ago, so all other descent people did.
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
VK wrote: On Dec 18, 11:13 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de wrote: You should also use the standardized intrinsic event handler `onload' attribute of the `body' element instead of the proprietary event handler property `onload' A very bad advise from the point of view of content-layout-scripting separation: Nonsense. Whether either the `script' element contains an assignment of a reference to a Function object to `window.onload' (or performing an equivalent), or the `script' element to contain a function declaration and the `onload' property of the `body' element to contain a call to that function makes no real difference. The script is always tied to and tailored to the markup. The real difference here is that the `onload' property is proprietary, and both it and a standards-compliant equivalent would require feature-testing for themselves, while the `onload' attribute is standardized as per HTML 4.01 (and supported long before that) and requires no feature-testing on itself. PointedEars |
I have considered moving back to 4.01, but I get layout issues (DIV
positioning).
I'll find some midway between the two. Thanks for your reply.
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote: The real difference here is that the `onload' property is proprietary, and both it and a standards-compliant equivalent would require feature-testing for themselves, while the `onload' attribute is standardized as per HTML 4.01 (and supported long before that) and requires no feature-testing on itself. [...] I have considered moving back to 4.01, but I get layout issues (DIV positioning). |
provides the `onload' attribute, of course. So that alone is no sufficient
reason to use HTML 4.01 in favor of XHTML 1.x; however, insufficient XHTML
support, as I pointed out earlier, is.
Quote:
|
I'll find some midway between the two. |
Quote:
|
Thanks for your reply. |
PointedEars
--
"Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.