- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:30:36 +0100
Does it not follow that to be "more consistent, logical, better style, whatever." you should wrap your code in a function that is called onload? Isn't that what onload is for? being triggered after the page has loaded? On 29 Mar 2007, at 09:51, Kristof Zelechovski wrote: > It is possible to place the script before </body> but having all > scripts > within the head is more consistent, logical, better style, > whatever. Except > for the reasons of coding style and clarity, having the script in > the head > prevents it from sneaking into the content displayed because the head > element is not rendered. > Weigh these arguments against the advantage of restricting deferred > scripts > to external scripts, which is, IMHO, null. > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org > [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Alexey > Feldgendler > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:25 AM > To: whatwg at whatwg.org > Subject: Re: [whatwg] Apply script.defer to internal scripts > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:19:47 +0200, Kristof Zelechovski > <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote: > >>>> The script embedded here is so short and specific that it makes no >>>> sense >>>> relaying it to an external location; however, if the script is not >>>> deferred, the script fails with an exception at run time because >>>> the >>>> document body is not constructed yet. > >>> What's wrong with simply placing it after </body>? > >> You do not place a script element after the body element: >> 3.6.1. The html element >> Content model: >> A head element followed by a body element. > > Sorry, immediately before </body>. > > > -- > Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> > [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com >
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 02:30:36 UTC