Martyr2 said the following on 4/14/2006 12:36 AM:
Randy Webb wrote: Martyr2 said the following on 4/13/2006 9:11 PM:
Please quote what you are replying to.
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the
"Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at
the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the
article headers.
<URL: http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/ >
Oh I know it is much easier from a coding standpoint. I just read on
the W3C site that they recommend avoiding innerHTML because it could
possibly introduce content into the dom structure that can not be
referenced later. Granted it is a working draft I read it from. The
exact phrase being...
That isn't a flaw in innerHTML, it is a flaw in the ability of the
person using innerHTML.
I never said it was a flaw, it is just depreciated because of the
problems it could introduce if misused. Which I why I am guessing they
have not removed it from the firefox implementation.
My apologies if my thought's didn't come across right. It wasn't a
contradiction but more of an added thought to the conversation.
If people have problems using innerHTML (which is what they have) then
it isn't a problem with innerHTML itself but rather the people who use
it not having an understanding of what it does and doesn't do.
That problem (lack of understanding) is what leads people to cry
"innerHTML is broken" and then some standards body will try to
"deprecate it" because it is "broken" when what is really broken is the
knowledge level of people using it.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ -
http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices -
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/