The simple fact that you don't have javascript floating all over your doc inside elements is alone a reason that unobtrusive rocks. Let alone many other reasons.
On Oct 12, 10:44 pm, expresso <dschin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the > > functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means > using a library > > obviously we're past that point. We've decided this was a good use > for jQuery. So how can you say priorities are tangled here when you > assume we're overthinking this because we're using a library. It > sounds as though you're a bit anti-new, stay hard core javascript type > of dude. If you're using javascript to make an entire application > fine, but I'm in with the new and new to me makes sense. Unobtrusive > is not overrated, it's good practice and it's a pattern as far as I'm > concerned. > > On Oct 12, 10:35 pm, expresso <dschin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > unobtrusive in this case is keeping javascript out of elements. > > onclick= binds them together. > > > On Oct 12, 9:39 pm, RobG <robg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 10:49 am, CoffeeAddict <dschin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Am I wrong to say you should never use onclick in an element as this > > > > would be > > > > contrary to the purpose of using jQuery > > > > I think you have your design priorites backward. Firstly determine the > > > functionality required, then how to best implement it. If that means > > > using a library, then use it. If the library driving your design > > > decisions, you might need to rethink using the library. > > > > > which means onclick would totally > > > > bind mark-up to javascript? > > > > In a way that using a CSS selector to attach handlers doesn't? > > > > > So it would not be unobtrusive in that case. > > > > The concept of "unobtrusive" javascript (i.e. attaching listeners at > > > the client, rather than the server) is an implementation methodology > > > that has been much hyped but probaby creates as many issues as it > > > solves. > > > > -- > > > Rob
