Comments on: MooTools: Saving the dollars, replacing document.write http://ajaxian.com/archives/mootools-saving-the-dollars-replacing-documentwrite Cleaning up the web with Ajax Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:55:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: ricardobeat http://ajaxian.com/archives/mootools-saving-the-dollars-replacing-documentwrite/comment-page-1#comment-274140 ricardobeat Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:03:22 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=7004#comment-274140 @tbroyer while the case you presented holds true, there is no sensible reason to do something like that, specially considering that document.write should be gone in XHTML. @tbroyer while the case you presented holds true, there is no sensible reason to do something like that, specially considering that document.write should be gone in XHTML.

]]> By: anewton http://ajaxian.com/archives/mootools-saving-the-dollars-replacing-documentwrite/comment-page-1#comment-274134 anewton Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:06:19 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=7004#comment-274134 @ThomasHansen, I think the point of overwriting the doc.write method is for AFTER the document has loaded. If a script (for example, a widget that you didn't author) uses doc. write because it expects to be included at run time, and you append it to the DOM after page load, it would overwrite the whole page with its contents. Overwriting it this way allows you to prevent that. @ThomasHansen, I think the point of overwriting the doc.write method is for AFTER the document has loaded. If a script (for example, a widget that you didn’t author) uses doc. write because it expects to be included at run time, and you append it to the DOM after page load, it would overwrite the whole page with its contents. Overwriting it this way allows you to prevent that.

]]> By: SubtleGradient http://ajaxian.com/archives/mootools-saving-the-dollars-replacing-documentwrite/comment-page-1#comment-274132 SubtleGradient Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:18:45 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=7004#comment-274132 Why would you combine these two completely unrelated stories? In other news... Eah I know my document.write replacement has limited utility. But it works great for some pretty specific things. Why would you combine these two completely unrelated stories?

In other news…

Eah I know my document.write replacement has limited utility. But it works great for some pretty specific things.

]]> By: tbroyer http://ajaxian.com/archives/mootools-saving-the-dollars-replacing-documentwrite/comment-page-1#comment-274130 tbroyer Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:34:18 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=7004#comment-274130 The big problem with replacing <code>document.write</code> the way Thomas Aylott describes is that it breaks expectations. <code>document.write</code> is <em>not</em> equivalent to <code>innerHTML</code>, it sends its argument to the currently running HTML parser, to be parsed as if it were actually in the page just after the <code><script></code>. With the <i>regular</i> <code>document.write</code>, one can write: <code> <script>document.write("<select>");</script><option>A<option>B</select> </code> while this will obviously fail with the replaced version (leading to the options vanishing at parse time, and then an empty select box being added on DOM ready) The big problem with replacing document.write the way Thomas Aylott describes is that it breaks expectations. document.write is not equivalent to innerHTML, it sends its argument to the currently running HTML parser, to be parsed as if it were actually in the page just after the <script>. With the regular document.write, one can write:


<script>document.write("<select>");</script><option>A<option>B</select>

while this will obviously fail with the replaced version (leading to the options vanishing at parse time, and then an empty select box being added on DOM ready)

]]> By: ThomasHansen http://ajaxian.com/archives/mootools-saving-the-dollars-replacing-documentwrite/comment-page-1#comment-274128 ThomasHansen Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:19:23 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=7004#comment-274128 We actually use "Ra.$" to avoid name-clashing in Ra. In fact everything we do is within the "Ra namespace". Like "Ra.klass" (instead of Object.extend like prototype etc) and it really doesn't add that much of overhead, so I don't understand why not more Ajax Framework developers does this. . In fact part of the reason why we choice the "Ra-Ajax" name was because Ra was only two letters and would carry significantly less browser/JS/bandwidth overhead then e.g. "Supercalifragilistic Ajax Framework" would do ... ;) We actually use “Ra.$” to avoid name-clashing in Ra. In fact everything we do is within the “Ra namespace”. Like “Ra.klass” (instead of Object.extend like prototype etc) and it really doesn’t add that much of overhead, so I don’t understand why not more Ajax Framework developers does this.
.
In fact part of the reason why we choice the “Ra-Ajax” name was because Ra was only two letters and would carry significantly less browser/JS/bandwidth overhead then e.g. “Supercalifragilistic Ajax Framework” would do … ;)

]]>