My WebExtension has options, such as "hide footer". Problem is that I can't manipulate DOM on document_start, because the <footer> doesn't exist yet. Injecting the code on document_end works, but the users still see the footer for a few seconds.
I have tried injecting CSS on <head> using document_start and it worked well. Now my question is:
Since CSS won't always be the same, what would be the best way to inject CSS? Is there a JavaScript function to directly write CSS to <style>, or should that be written manually using something such as innerHTML?
Related
I was given a code snippet from a company we are working with for integration but the script they have given me is injecting their stylesheet. Is there any way to manipulate or better integrate their code into the site?
This is what they gave me:
<div id="aiVwbfPVDo2FdPTRGRWzhF9I8RbaTruD_get_appointment_container">
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://providers.doctor.com/siteEnhance/getAppointmentWidget?key=aiVwbfPVDo2FdPTRGRWzhF9I8RbaTruD"></script></div>
When I inspect the code with a web browser it shows a stylesheet and button are inserted...how can I manipulate that code?
If the CSS isn't in your side, you can't manipulate it, the most you can do is override the styles, take in account the CSS specificity
I'm attempting to inject jQuery into a site that's not mine, and is in an iOS webview. I'd like to change a few things like the background color, font, etc.
I read the answers here...
How to inject JQuery into existing page within a UIWebView?
But couldn't figure out a way to do it.
All the solutions I've read suggest using stringByEvaluatingJavaScriptFromString to inject jQuery. I believe this solution only injects JavaScript though, while I think what might work is how jQuery is normally installed with the html head tag inside a script tag like this
<head>
<script src="https://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.2.1.min.js">
</script>
</head>
I don't know how to inject that though? Or maybe there's a different way entirely?
NOTE: I am in no way advocating multiple heads within a page
I'm using Apache Tiles and I have a few tiles that include their own heads. The result of the Tiles renders into an HTML page with multiple heads.
My questions:
How is the resulting page handled in IE and Chrome? [It renders and appears successful]
WITH APACHE TILES What is the best practice for dealing with/avoiding multiple heads [for CSS/Javascript] without having to demand all pages use the same JS and CSS files.
For Example with Question Two:
Lets say you have the following pages: home, profile, and gallery listing. Gallery listing has fancy JQuery+YUI+... and more styles. For most users, they would only be interested in the home and profile pages, so why slow them down with loading the JS and CSS files associated with Gallery.
This is what is generated
<html>
<head>
<title>The Template's Title</title>
</head>
<body>
<head> <script src="javascriptfile.js"/></head> Tile One Content
<head> <script src="javascriptfile2.js"/></head> Title Two Content
</body>
</html>
The generated contents is running the script in javascriptfile.js, and javascriptfile2. What I'm asking in the first question: is the extra heads ignored, and the contents considers? are they combined into the html/head level? Is it possible to include CSS files in the second or later head? Will this create an error with a stricter DTD?
Well, in modern Chrome, it's at least possible to know what happens. Chrome uses the HTML5 parser algorithm which describes exactly how invalid mark-up is processed. The gory details are at http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/tree-construction.html#parsing-main-inbody
What happens in your example is that the first <head> in <body> is discarded. Then the <script src="javascriptfile.js"/> tag is processed, which is a start tag, not a self-closing tag, so everything that follows, including everything that looks like a tag, becomes a text child of the script element. Nothing is displayed and no script is run. If <script src="javascriptfile.js"/> is replaced by <script src="javascriptfile.js"></script>, and ditto for <script src="javascriptfile2.js"/>, the head start and end tags are silent discarded, and the script elements are not moved. "Tile One Content Title Two Content" is displayed and the scripts are run. The DTD makes no difference at all.
IE is somewhat trickier to know, as before IE10, it doesn't use the HTML5 parser algorithm and therefore it's exact behaviour is a mystery. However, a cursory experiment appears to show that it has the same behaviour as described above.
Although some legacy browsers move elements that can only appear in the head - such as <link> - into the head, other browsers do not, and no such behaviour can be relied upon.
All in all, best steer well clear of such constructs.
I don't know about practices for Apache Tiles.
What is the purpose of doing something so egregiously invalid? And why you're asking this seems very unclear.
Not only should you only have ONE <head></head> section on a page, under no circumstances is the <head></head> to be nested anywhere inside the <body></body> section.
This practice makes absolutely no sense whatsoever....
(Side-note: Certain browsers ignore or move invalid tags when the DOM is constructed which will defeat your entire purpose of doing this.)
EDIT (based on comments):
For anyone interested in including <script> tags within the <body>, you can read more about the specific details in my answer here...
Will linking javascript files in the body rather than in the header cause a problem?
You don't really need extra heads to include additional css/js. You can 'inline' the whole <style type="text/css">...</style> part and it will render fine. Will it validate? No. But will run fine.
How is the resulting page handled in IE and Chrome? [It renders and appears successful]
I don't know and I really don't want to know.
What is the best practice for dealing with multiple heads [for CSS/Javascript] without having to demand all pages use the same JS and CSS.
Don't do it :-)
Is there a reason you can't just include the JS files in the body / head without the extra tags?
Or add the css / js files in the 'normal' head section of the document (where it should be).
Well atleast you want the CSS files to be loaded as soon as the page starts loading. JS files can (sometimes) be loaded at the end of the HTML.
For example if the JS files need to have a completely loaded DOM (for e.g. accessing DOM elements).
Note
Sorry this isn't really an answer to your question, however what you are doing just looks way bad. :) And is almost certainly not needed / there will be a better solution for it.
I'm creating an AJAX heavy web application and I'm curious on what people's thoughts are on adding style and script tags to the body of an HTML document.
I've been using the jquery.load() method to insert content on the fly. An example partial HTML page that could get loaded into the body element is this:
<script type="text/javascript">
$(function() {
// All required java script for the control goes here...
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
/* All required styles for the inserted HTML go here */
</style>
<div id="some-control">
<!-- Required HTML markup is here. -->
</div>
Since this HTML is getting loaded into a DIV, we are ending up with script and style tags that are not in the head but in the body of an HTML document. I'm not sure if this is valid HTML? Is this a common approach to developing AJAX enabled web applications? Are there any drawbacks I should be aware of?
As far as Javascript is concerend, you can put it any where on the page provided that elements it will work upon are loaded before and it does not throw the error undefined element. Famous Yahoo performance article and even Google (in terms of SEO) suggests to put javascript at the end of the page just before the </body> tag.
If you can manage to put your script just before </body> tag, that is considered good approach otherwise what you are doing now should be fine if everything is working properly for you.
I would actually disagree with Sarfraz and say that you should avoid using <script> and <style> tags in your page body as much as possible. The advantages of moving your JS to an external file are endless. The most obvious include:
leveraging on browser caching - if you just write code in your body, that's extra kilobytes of data that need to be loaded for every page. If it's a universal function, you're wasting precious load time. If it were in an external file, most modern browsers cache that file and only request a new version so often. This decreases server load as well (less requests)
Furthermore, if you ARE using a similar script on multiple pages, what happens if you need to make a change :(. Now you're running around searching for every instance of a <script> tag to make a change. Having all your code centrally located and universal allows for ONE change and DONE
Versioning - if you use version control (GIT, SVN, etc), it's much easier to track and revert one file (if you made a mistake or accidentally lost code) than all of them
CSS share a similar story. Again, with caching and centralized storage, and reusability. It's even more important, however, for styles to match on a website. From a UI standpoint, you don't want your fonts changing from page-to-page and you don't want to edit 40 pages every time you want to add a new style.
As far as having the JS in the document because you are using AJAX loaded content, I suggest you look into .bind and .live. They let you attach handlers to existing and future instances of a DOMObject. For example:
$('.class').live('click', function(){
alert('I was clicked!');
});
This will apply to any object that existed at page load AND objects that are later created. The following code will NOT - it only applies to objects created on load:
$('.class').click(function(){
alert('I was clicked!');
});
When I see that the big-site Content Management Systems routinely put some <style> elements (some, not all) close to the content that relies on those classes, I conclude that the horse is out of the barn.
Go look at page sources from cnn.com, nytimes.com, huffingtonpost.com, your nearest big-city newspaper, etc. All of them do this.
If there's a good reason to put an extra <style> section somewhere in the body -- for instance if you're include()ing diverse and independent page elements in real time and each has an embedded <style> of its own, and the organization will be cleaner, more modular, more understandable, and more maintainable -- I say just bite the bullet. Sure it would be better if we could have "local" style with restricted scope, like local variables, but you go to work with the HTML you have, not the HTML you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Of course there are potential drawbacks and good (if not always compelling) reasons to follow the orthodoxy, as others have elaborated. But to me it looks more and more like thoughtful use of <style> in <body> has already gone mainstream.
I'm currently developing a Safari extension that uses an injected script to further inject some HTML into the current webpage, as well as injecting some other scripts to make it work. This is all working fine, but the issue is that the HTML that is injected gets affected by CSS stylesheets that the webpage has already imported. For example, the HTML looks perfect on Google.com (which has relatively little CSS styling), but awful on StackOverflow.com (which styles buttons etc).
jQuery is injected into the webpage at the time of this HTML being displayed, so I have that available. I've tried all kinds of things, including walking through all of the elements and calling removeClass() on each of them, to no avail. I've also tried to add "CSS reset" classes, etc, but nothing seems to be working.
What's the best way to go around preventing the CSS from interfering with my HTML?
You can't prevent that from happen. However, you can override the CSS rules. Give your main element a unique id (which really should be unique by obfustation, like "yourapplicationname_mainelement_name" or something), then override all possible styles that might give strange effects on your html.
Your plugin:
<div id="yourapplicationname_mainelement_name">
<p>My paragraph that must not be styled</p>
</div>
Your css:
#yourapplicationname_mainelement_name p {
display: block;
color: black;
background: white;
position: relative;
... and so on ...
}
As your css style rules are the most specific, given your id, they will override any settings present on the page where your html is injected.
Further... It might be hard to see what rules are the most important. You can use firebug or similar to understand which is overriding another. You'll have a hard time without it when developing your application.
that's a tough one. two options as I see it.
You could set a wrapping div around all your content and prefix all your css with that. example:
<body>
<div class='wrappingDiv'>
...
</div>
</body>
stylesheet:
.wrappingDiv * {}
Then when you inject jquery use that to close off the initial wrapping div before your content and to wrap any following content in the another wrapping div.
Issues:
Only possible if you are injecting
other site content onto your own
site.
This could get complicated
depending on where you are injecting
html.
The other option is to load a resetting stylesheet that targets your injected html specifically. In this case only your injected html would be wrapped but you'd need a css file that reset all attributes for all tags to their default before you add your own styles. No real issues here, just not very elegant...
Another way would be to use an element that doesn't inherit stylesheet like an iframe, but that comes with its own issues...
i have seen on different plugins that they put the code inside a iframe and they use JS to interact with the rest of the page, so you can not change the css inside.
Also i have seen that when injecting html code,people sets the style of the plugin content using the "style" attribute inside the tags so the browser will give priority to the css inside the style attribute and not the css file. The idea is to override the css,usually with the "!important" clause. But you might have some problems on different browsers
EDIT i forgot to say that my answer is on the case that you inject the code on someone's else page where you cannot control directly the css