"现代" JavaScript的... [英] "modern" javascript...

问题描述

所以现代是什么？ JavaScript的？与DOM-scripting相同？即

通过按摩javascript对象，html元素等来动态编辑内容（或更改内容的外观）？ （结合

css，你知道，通常......;）这就是现代的含义

javascript ??那么大家怎么会觉得这个人认为javascript是如此？b $ b邪恶他们从浏览器中禁用它？设计用

" modern" javascript（就像这里所说的那样，
http：// www.sitepoint.com/books/dhtml1/ ）在浏览器中工作

javascript禁用????


只是好奇..谢谢...

解决方案

maya< ma ******** @ yahoo.comwrites ：

hi，


所以现代是什么？ JavaScript的？

谁知道。我希望有一天，相对不错的代码会被认为是现代的。今天不是那一天。

和DOM-scripting相同？即

通过按摩javascript对象，html元素等来动态编辑内容（或更改内容的外观）？ （结合

与css，你知道，通常......;）这就是现代的含义

javascript ??

那里有问题吗？

所以大家怎么看待这个想到javascript的人是

如此邪恶，他们从浏览器中禁用它？

他们是对的。通过

默认禁用脚本会好得多。当然，对于可信站点来说，快速打开

也很方便，这就是firefox noscript

扩展名存在的原因。

设计用

" modern" javascript（就像这里所说的那样，
http：// www.sitepoint.com/books/dhtml1/ ）在浏览器中工作

javascript禁用????

不引人注目的javascript只是有趣的是它促进了一般即使没有javascript网站也应该工作的想法。所有

剩下的就是废话 - 尤其是关于不混合脚本的内容

与HTML。

只是好奇..谢谢...

嗯，你去吧。


-

Joost Diepenmaat |博客： http://joost.zeekat.nl/ |工作： http://zeekat.nl/

Joost Diepenmaat写道：

maya< ma ******** @ yahoo.comwrites：

> hi，

所以现代是什么？ JavaScript的？

谁知道。我希望有一天，相对不错的代码会被认为是现代的。今天不是那一天。

>与DOM-scripting相同？即，通过按摩javascript对象，html元素等动态地编辑内容（或改变内容的外观）？ （与css一起使用，你知道，通常......;）这就是现代的意思吗？
javascript ??

是的，我的意思是：是现代的 javascript与usu相同。

意为DOM-scripting，即通过按摩javascript对象动态编辑内容（或更改外观

内容）或html

元素？ （响应用户输入或其他事件？）

>

那里有问题吗？
< blockquote class =post_quotes>
>所以大家怎么看待这个谁认为javascript是如此邪恶他们从浏览器禁用它？

他们是对的。通过

默认禁用脚本会好得多。

当然，有一个快速的方法可以将它打开

对于受信任的站点，这就是为什么像firefox noscript

扩展名存在的原因。

>做用
设计的网站;现代" javascript（就像这里所说的那样，
http：// www.sitepoint.com/books/dhtml1/ ）在已禁用javascript的浏览器中工作????

不引人注目的javascript只是有趣的是它促进了

的想法，即使没有javascript，网站一般应该可以工作。

不确定这是否回答关于是否使用

" modern"构建的网站的问题javascript在禁用javascript的浏览器中工作...

（爸爸不要讲道 - 只是事实，妈妈......;）


（不确定unobtrusive是什么意思javascript - javascript你

不喜欢?? ....;）


谢谢...

maya< ma ******** @ yahoo.comwrites：

（不确定是什么意思不引人注目javascript - javascript你

不喜欢?? ....;）

请将您的报价减少到合理数量，这样就可以清除您所回复的内容，而不会让读者感到压力。


无论如何，我不喜欢的是将javascript与

HTML分开的想法（仅* *包括javascript通过< script src = ...标签）是一个有价值的目标。如果你用

手写的所有HTML，而不是使用某种逻辑系统来为你生成HTML

，那么它可能会很有用（而且我''我不是在谈论WYSIWYG编辑器 - 我更喜欢

轻量级离线模板系统用于简单网站），但大多数

任何大量使用javascript的网站无论如何都会生成一串代码，而且目标不是生成干净的代码。 HTML，使用可维护的代码来创建可访问的网站。


-

Joost Diepenmaat |博客： http://joost.zeekat.nl/ |工作： http://zeekat.nl/

hi,

so what is "modern" javascript?? the same as "DOM-scripting"? i.e.,
editing content (or changing appearance of content) dynamically by
massaging javascript objects, html elements, etc? (in conjunction with
css, you know, the usual...;) this is what is meant by "modern"
javascript?? so how do folks feel about this who think javascript is so
evil they disable it from their browsers?? do sites designed with
"modern" javascript (like what''s talked about here,
http://www.sitepoint.com/books/dhtml1/) work in browsers that have
javascript disabled????

just curious.. thank you...

解决方案

maya <ma********@yahoo.comwrites:

hi,

so what is "modern" javascript??

Who knows. I should hope that some day, relatively decent code will be
considered "modern". Today is not that day.

the same as "DOM-scripting"? i.e.,
editing content (or changing appearance of content) dynamically by
massaging javascript objects, html elements, etc? (in conjunction
with css, you know, the usual...;) this is what is meant by "modern"
javascript??

Is there a question in there somewhere?

so how do folks feel about this who think javascript is
so evil they disable it from their browsers??

They''re right. It''s much better to have scripting disabled by
default. Of course, it''s also handy to have a quick way to turn it on
for trusted sites, which is why things like the firefox noscript
extension exist.

do sites designed with
"modern" javascript (like what''s talked about here,
http://www.sitepoint.com/books/dhtml1/) work in browsers that have
javascript disabled????

Unobtrusive javascript is only interesting in that it promotes the
idea that sites in general should work even without javascript. All
the rest is bullshit - especially the bits about not mixing scripts
with HTML.

just curious.. thank you...

Well, there you go.

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/

Joost Diepenmaat wrote:

maya <ma********@yahoo.comwrites:

>hi,

so what is "modern" javascript??

Who knows. I should hope that some day, relatively decent code will be
considered "modern". Today is not that day.

>the same as "DOM-scripting"? i.e.,
editing content (or changing appearance of content) dynamically by
massaging javascript objects, html elements, etc? (in conjunction
with css, you know, the usual...;) this is what is meant by "modern"
javascript??

yes there is, I meant: is "modern" javascript the same as what is usu.
meant by "DOM-scripting", i.e., editing content (or changing appearance
of content) dynamically by massaging javascript objects or html
elements? (in response to user input or other events?)

>
Is there a question in there somewhere?

> so how do folks feel about this who think javascript is
so evil they disable it from their browsers??

They''re right. It''s much better to have scripting disabled by
default.

Of course, it''s also handy to have a quick way to turn it on

for trusted sites, which is why things like the firefox noscript
extension exist.

>do sites designed with
"modern" javascript (like what''s talked about here,
http://www.sitepoint.com/books/dhtml1/) work in browsers that have
javascript disabled????

Unobtrusive javascript is only interesting in that it promotes the
idea that sites in general should work even without javascript.

not sure if this answers question about whether or not sites built with
"modern" javascript work in browsers that have javascript disabled...
(papa don''t preach -- just the facts, ma''m....;)

(not sure what is meant by "unobtrusive" javascript -- javascript you
don''t like??....;)

thank you...

maya <ma********@yahoo.comwrites:

(not sure what is meant by "unobtrusive" javascript -- javascript you
don''t like??....;)

Please trim your quotes down to some reasonable amount so that it''s
clear what you''re replying to, without overwhelming the readers.

Anyway, what I don''t like is the idea that separating javascript from
HTML (by *only* including javascript via <script src=...tags) is a
worthwhile goal. It may be useful if you''re writing all your HTML by
hand, instead of using some kind of logical system to generate HTML
for you (and I''m not talking about WYSIWYG editors here - I prefer
light-weight off-line templating systems for simple sites), but most
any site that makes heavy use of javascript already generates bunches
of code anyway, and the goal is not to produce "clean" HTML, it''s to
create accessible sites, using maintainable code.

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/

这篇关于&QUOT;现代&QUOT; JavaScript的...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！