direct javascript deprecated?

[Tony]

At http://www.quirksmode.org/js/placejs.html
I found a discussion on how & where to place your javascript.

Toward the bottom of the page, PPK has a section titled Deprecated:
Direct JavaScripts, with a small blurb that says "Do not use direct
JavaScripts. This section is only maintained for historical reasons."

For clarity, he is referring to a practice like:

<script type="text/javascript">
// Some javascript here
</script>

So - this is deprecated? This is something that shouldn't be done?

I can think of many instances where this would be the only way to
accomplish some things, and at least a few where it is a preferable
solution to loading & executing a script from an external file.

So - is this really deprecated? Or is the information presented
innacurate? Or perhaps something in between?

[VK]

Tony wrote:

At http://www.quirksmode.org/js/placejs.html
I found a discussion on how & where to place your javascript.

Toward the bottom of the page, PPK has a section titled Deprecated:
Direct JavaScripts, with a small blurb that says "Do not use direct
JavaScripts. This section is only maintained for historical reasons."

That is a la W3C text (by style, not by origin). I mean it is not
enough to read it: you need also decrypt the intended sense out of bad
wording and typos.

Of course <script> is not deprecated.

The relevant section is called "Deprecated : Direct JavaScripts", and
the note referes to the section's title. Must read:
"Do not use "Direct JavaScripts" recommendations for <script> tag
syntax. This section is only maintained for historical reasons."

In this form it is correct, because this legacy part refers to the
"language" attribute and the "hide the script" comment trick.

P.S. Overall <http://www.quirksmode. org> is good source of info; it
suffers a bit of standards' maximalism and "Micro$oft must die!" stuff,
but the overall quality of materials is high.

[Michael Winter]

On 12/04/2006 19:21, Tony wrote:

At http://www.quirksmode.org/js/placejs.html
[snip]
<script type="text/javascript">
// Some javascript here
</script>

So - this is deprecated? This is something that shouldn't be done?
The exact code that's demonstrated is deprecated; it features the
language attribute and SGML comments. However, I agree that that doesn't
appear to be the focus of the term 'deprecated'.

No, embedded scripts are not deprecated, however I do support the
sentiment of using external files where practical, especially for large
or reusable code.

[snip]
Or is the information presented innacurate? Or perhaps something in
between?

It's certainly inaccurate in some respects, but it seems to suffer more
from age than anything else. The information in the FAQ Notes[1] is most
definitely better.

Mike
[1] <http://www.jibbering.c om/faq/faq_notes/script_tags.htm l>

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[Tony]

VK wrote:

That is a la W3C text (by style, not by origin). I mean it is not
enough to read it: you need also decrypt the intended sense out of bad
wording and typos.

Of course <script> is not deprecated.

The relevant section is called "Deprecated : Direct JavaScripts", and
the note referes to the section's title. Must read:
"Do not use "Direct JavaScripts" recommendations for <script> tag
syntax. This section is only maintained for historical reasons."

In this form it is correct, because this legacy part refers to the
"language" attribute and the "hide the script" comment trick.
Ah - that makes more sense, then :) It didn't come across quite that
clearly, and I'm used to getting good info from PPK
P.S. Overall <http://www.quirksmode. org> is good source of info; it
suffers a bit of standards' maximalism and "Micro$oft must die!" stuff,
but the overall quality of materials is high.

I have found it to be a very useful resource