W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2010

[whatwg] Script-related feedback

From: Diego Perini <diego.perini@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:31:42 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=nJQOc=syHK2PY+ZbcpZhhosdZ145XR=u=ycfv@mail.gmail.com>
Six out of the six mentioned sites are never visited by me.

Though I know I am not representative in these numbers, I believe I recently
saw tests about "defer" currently having different implementation across
browser and different behavior depending on the script insertion point and
again depending on the browser.

Should we really trust defer="" (at least in most recent browsers) ?
Where is it more reliable cross-browser in the head or the body section ?


Diego Perini


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Steve Souders wrote:
> > >
> > > Given that it is possible to do this from script, how common is it for
> > > people to do it from script? If it's very common, that would be a good
> > > data point encouraging us to do this sooner rather than later.
> >
> > 6 of the top 10 US web sites load scripts after the load event: eBay,
> > Facebook, Bing, MSN.com, MySpace, and Yahoo.
>
> Do we know why they do this rather than use defer="", and whether
> defer="" would handle their use casess?
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100724/70ced669/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 24 July 2010 05:31:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:25 UTC