> If, in this case, the DOM WG chooses to endorse the Mozilla-style > non-support of document.write in XML (which I think would make sense), I've always read the W3C DOMs as not allowing document.write on the loading document, so I've always interpreted that common usage as being a DOM 0 feature; I wish there were a document that defined DOM 0. > > There are still uses for having script elements inside the body, with > > or without document.write(). For example, some server-side technologies They use I've found for document.write at load time is when marketing people insist that there be a Javascript "button" (quite often just duplicating the browser back button and typically an image link) that is non-essential. There is no inverse equivalent in HTML 4 (not checked XHTML 2) for <noscript> which is only included when scripting is enabled. Without the load time scripting and given that marketing people tend to "know best" on such issues, one is left with a dead control for users without scripting. This is probably an argument for a <hasscripting> element, or, if XML allows it, conditional content flags that indicate the presence of scripting capability, rather than for load time scripting.Received on Saturday, 28 September 2002 10:15:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:59:17 GMT