As I mentioned before - I'd *love* to have a solution for this. Any working solution for Firefox < 3.6 will be happily accepted.
--John On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Shade <get...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just want to say that I still think that the "document.readyState" > problem is an issue that needs further addressing than what jquery is > planning to ship right now. This bug brought this topic up a few > months back: > > http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4889 > > At the time, as John said, we thought it would be "ok" the solution > that is now in, because FF3.5 was going to finally include > document.readyState, and so the number of browsers affected by the > problem by the time jquery released again would be minimal... FF3 and > below has to be a dwindling number now. > > But, now that we know that FF 3.5 still has this problem, and it only > *may* end up FF3.6, and that jquery is releasing soon, I think there > will be a lot of people still affected by this problem. FF3.5 will be > around for a non-trivial amount of time, even if FF3.6 released today > (which we know it will still be a little while). > > Here's the primary reason I consider this an issue worth more effort: > I have been pushing this tool I built called LABjs (http://labjs.com) > which is a parallel script loader. It's getting a lot of good support > and reviews so far, but it suffers one major problem (and almost all > loaders have this same issue): it can't be used safely to load scripts > like jquery, because if it happens to load the script after the page's > domready, then all $(document).ready(...) related code will sit idle > and never be fired! This is a major achilles' heel for any script > loader. > > Whether you like LABjs or not, or plan to use it or something like it > or not, there are starting to be more and more places where people are > trying to accelerate the loading of their pages through various > techniques like dynamic script loading (XHR, etc), meaning it's going > to more and more likely that jquery gets added to a page in some other > way than through a normal blocking script tag. This means that this > problem with it detecting domready will get more and more obvious > until we find a way to solve it. > > Every time I have given a talk about LABjs over the last couple of > months, I've mentioned this caveat but said "But, at least with the > next jQuery this will be fixed." > > But, now hearing that even with FF3.5 it won't be fixed yet, I think > we need something better, even if we just do some sort of temporary > hacks for a release or two until we have stable browser base where > this works. > > I know that jQuery doesn't officially guarantee this usage.... but > that I think is a troublesome blindsight to just ignore. It's a > perfectly valid use-case for jquery (think about bookmarklets, etc), > it's not at all documented very well that this problem exists, and the > web is moving to more and more of various different tricks to load > things in different ways, which *will* expose the problem even more. > > I think we should run some tests to prove whether or not Andrea's code > solution addresses this problem for FF or not. Or we could revisit the > code from the bug I linked, which was actually from SWFObject, and see > if it can provide a temporary hack fix. Or we can find something > else. > > But I just don't think there simply is no answer -- there has to be a > way for jquery to detect if domready is already passed. We may just > need to be more creative and a little more accepting of hackiness for > the time being. I know there won't be a nice elegant solution to this > problem, but I think doing nothing and just saying "sorry that's not > supported" is going to become more and more a problem the longer we > don't address it. > > > --Kyle > > > > On Nov 17, 2:23 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Oh, just to mention, regarding your solution snippet - it doesn't > really > > > solve anything (especially not for us). > > > > it does not really solve anything? That's probably why I had to implement > > for a little project I am working on right now ... > > Anyway, I posted why it make sense to implement out of the box: > http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2009/11/195-chars-to-help-lazy-load... > > > > Regards > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jQuery Development" group. > To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<jquery-dev%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=.
