ansaurus

Question

Browser-independant workaround for onload event -- making sense?

Answer 1

+2 A:

That sounds good. There's no reason to not do it that way, as long as your script is at the end of the page. As a matter of fact, ASP.NET uses this method to load it's scripts.

Grinn 2010-02-18 22:01:18

Thanks, nice to know! Just had to edit some ASP.NET pages too.

Simon A. Eugster 2010-02-20 09:24:21

Answer 2

+2 A:

This would be fine for basic pages. However, if your script dealt with images that hadn't finished downloading or results from ajax requests you might run into trouble. If you're handcoding things, something like this should work:

function registerEvent(el, event, func, bCapture)
{
    if (el.attachEvent)
        el.attachEvent('on'+event, func);
    else if (el.addEventListener)
        el.addEventListener(event, func, bCapture);

}

Otherwise, the various JS libraries each have their own implementation such as jQuery's $(document).ready().

chprpipr 2010-02-18 22:17:48

I should note that as a general rule you should place as much of your javascript at the bottom of the page to improve page rendering times. See Yahoo's YSlow documentation for details and more handy tips (http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#js_bottom).

chprpipr 2010-02-18 22:18:32

Thank you very much for your answer! Interesting link, too.I've just read a page from ppk about attaching events (to be honest, I was suspicious of not all modern browsers supporting this kind of event registration). He sais that they do, and his article is about 2 years old :) http://www.quirksmode.org/js/events_advanced.html

Simon A. Eugster 2010-02-20 09:21:47

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Browser-independant workaround for onload event -- making sense?

related questions