On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 2/5/11, Miller Medeiros <lis...@millermedeiros.com> wrote:
> > I started the project using markup for everything (stored in separate
> files
> > and parsed with a template library) and using `innerHTML` to replace the
> > content/estate of my application but after a couple days of development I
> > started to migrate most of my code to pure DOM, creating most of the
> > elements using `document.createElement`...
> >
>
> Sure, and then add innerHTML, right?
>
yes, if it is a "leaf" node that I know that won't effect any reference to
other elements by doing so.
> > for my specific case `document.createElement` seems a better approach
> since
> > I can cache a reference to the created elements (and delete it later
> after
> > switching content) instead of having to query for them again every time I
> > append something to the innerHTML of the parentNode.. (which would make
> the
> > cached reference point to the wrong element)
> >
> > Anyone has any thoughts about that? similar experiences? which one should
> be
> > favored?
> >
> > PS: the app is only target for iPad, Chrome and Safari.
>
> OK. I believe that with innerHTML a node reference can be obtained by
> using `node.querySelector`. Stick to standards mode, not quirks.
> Example:
>
> var div = document.createElement("div");
> div.innerHTML = buildPane();
> var actuator = div.querySelector("a.actuator");
>
> That should work in the browsers you are targeting, AFAIK. Anybody who
> believes otherwise or knows of issues please post up, TIA.
>
yes it does work (at least I didn't experienced any issues related with
that), but the kind of problem I'm trying to avoid is when you update the
`innerHTML` of a parent node. (which would clone every child element and
break my references).
> > PS2: the project reminds a little bit this website
> > http://www.wrangler-europe.com/wrangler/ - since I have a fullscreen
>
> That took too long to load for me.
>
yes, I agree it's huge... mine the load time shouldn't be that bad since the
video is way smaller (unless you are on 3G).
> interactive video as well and almost no copy.
>
> Well I don't like that type of site at all. I prefer pages with clear
> readable (largish) text with a few images. I don't like video unless
> it is a particular video that I chose to watch and I hate it when
> sites paly video or audio when I don't ask for it. Man like when
> you're watching a site and all of a sudden it is blaring out I either
> frantically clicking mute button or close the window or navigate away.
> It can be really embarrassing.
>
> WCAG talks about prerecorded audio and video.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
>
> I would explain the problems with that to the client in writing. They
> may have signed off on that design but you should make sure they know
> about the consequences of doing that.
>
> Well at least take care to watch out for a11y issues so that users
> aren't blocked.
>
I know a lot of people don't like this kind of website, and that's one of
the reasons why people hates Flash, but the idea/design won't change I have
to finish coding it until Friday... Some people still like this kind of
websites (including myself).
cheers.
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
