document.head，document.body附加脚本 [英] document.head, document.body to attach scripts
问题描述
loader = document.createElement（'script'）;
loader.src =myurl.js;
document.getElementsByTagName（'head'）[0] .appendChild（loader）;
现在，偶然的是，我发现它适用于Google Chrome：
document.head.appendChild（loader）;
更多的调查，我发现这个工作，显然是跨浏览器：
document.body.appendChild（loader）;
所以我的主要问题是：是否有任何理由为什么我不应该添加元素到BODY，这个？
另外，你认为 document.head 将会得到更广泛的支持吗？
在实践中我看不出任何理由重要，无论您是否插入脚本> 元素到< head> 或< body> 元素。理论上来说，我认为运行时DOM类似于静态的，很高兴。
对于 document.head ，它是HTML5的一部分，显然已经在所有主流浏览器的最新版本中实现（请参阅 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/dom.html#dom-document-head ）。
I have often used, and seen recommended, dom-access structures like this for adding content to pages dynamically:
loader = document.createElement('script');
loader.src = "myurl.js";
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(loader);
Now, by chance, I find that this works in Google chrome:
document.head.appendChild(loader);
A little more investigation, and I find that this works, apparently cross-browser:
document.body.appendChild(loader);
So my primary question is: are there any reasons why I shouldn't attach elements to the BODY like this?
Also, do you think document.head will become more widely supported?
I can’t see any reason why it would matter in practice whether you insert your <script> elements into the <head> or the <body> element. In theory, I guess it’s nice to have the runtime DOM resemble the would-be static one.
As for document.head, it’s part of HTML5 and apparently already implemented in the latest builds of all major browsers (see http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/dom.html#dom-document-head).
这篇关于document.head，document.body附加脚本的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
