HTMLScriptElement vs '<script>' tag - javascript

Is there any advantages of loading a script using HTMLScriptElement instead of loading it by just including it in the DOM?
Maybe for instance it would be easier to keep things clean in the DOM and also hide the scripts (make them less obvious)?
Didn't find any sources on this, that's why I am asking.

Normally, you would just include script tags directly in the HTML document. Unless you use the async attribute, subsequent scripts will won't load until the previous ones so you can safely rely on any dependencies to be available.
You could use the HTMLScriptElement interface programmatically to load scripts, if you wanted to keep your HTML cleaner. However, then you'd have to manually create onload and onerror handlers to asynchronously wait for the script(s) to load. This would get messy and complicated unless you build an abstraction around it. And then you're doing something done many times before, see RequireJS, SystemJS et al.
So, wanting to keep your HTML clean of script tags is a reasonable ambition, but you're probably best off looking into an off-the-shelf script loader to do that rather than rolling your own.

There is not really a choice here. HTMLScriptElement is the "interface" exposed by all HTML <script> nodes.
One creates script nodes by calling document.createElement('script') or by passing a <script>...</script> tag string through the HTML parser (this can happen in a variety of ways: from parsing a complete HTML document to setting the innerHTML of an existing element.) When a <script> element is created in an HTML document, HTMLScriptElement is in its prototype chain. Therefore, all properties and methods on HTMLScriptElement are accessible to the <script> element.
HTMLScriptElement is not a constructor function, however. This can be seen by attempting to invoke new HTMLScriptElement(), which throws an Illegal constructor TypeError.
All this is to say that your question does not really make sense, since one cannot load "a script using HTMLScriptElement instead of loading it by just including it in the DOM".

Related

When NOT to use defer attribute

I thought I knew how to use 'defer' attribute when referencing external scripts from my HTML pages.
I even thought there is no reason for me NOT to use it. But after a couple of unexpected things I started to research (even here) and I think I'm not 100% sure when it's safe to use it every time I use the script tag.
Is there somewhere a list of known use cases when defer should NOT be used?
The only thing defer does is run your script when the DOM has finished parsing, but before the DOMContentReady event is fired off.
So: if your code does not depend on the DOM (directly, or indirectly through access to document properties that can only be determined once the DOM is done), there is no reason to defer. For example: a utility library that adds a new namespace ComplexNumbers, with a ComplexNumber object type and associated utility functions for performing complex number maths, has no reason to wait for a DOM: it doesn't need to be deferred. Same for a custom websocket library: even if your own use of that library requires performing DOM updates, it does not depend on the DOM and doesn't need defer.
But for any code that tries to access anything related to the DOM: you need to use defer. And yes: you should pretty much have defer on any script that loads as part of the initial page load, and if you did your job right, none of those scripts interfere with each other when they try to touch the various pieces of the DOM they need to work with.
In fact, you should have both defer *and* async, so as not to block the page thread. The exception being if you're loading a type="module" script, in which case you don't get a choice in deferral: it's deferred by default. but it'll still need async.

How to use javascript without appending it to DOM

I am developing an Single Page Application (SPA) from scratch. I am doing it from scratch using only HTML, CSS and vanilla JavaScript and not using any external frameworks.
My application will initially load Web page but upon navigating to some other page say page2, it will only load required data and functions about other page2 from page2.js and not reload the entire Web page.
To use the JavaScript I will append it to body. But the problem is that when I navigate same page again it will append the same JavaScript again. The more pages I visit the more scripts are attached.
I have tried removing existing script tag in favour or upcoming script and it works good, but is there a way that I don't have to append script to DOM in the first place?
So my question is, is there a way we can parse (not just plain read) or execute JavaScript file without using any physical medium (DOM)
Although I am expecting pure JavaScript, libraries would also work, just need a logical explaination
So my question is, is there a way we can parse (not just plain read) or execute JavaScript file without using any physical medium (DOM)
Yes, you can. How you do it depends on how cutting-edge the environment you're going to support is (either natively, or via tools that can emulate some things in older environments).
In a modern environment...
...you could solve this with dynamic import, which is new in ES2020 (but already supported by up-to-date browsers, and emulated by tools like Webpack and Rollup.js). With dynamic import, you'd do something like this:
async function loadPage(moduleUrl) {
const mod = await import(moduleUrl);
mod.main();
}
No matter how many times it's requested, within a realm a module is only loaded once. (Your SPA will be within a realm, so that works.) So the code above will dynamically load the module's code the first time, but just give you back a reference to the already-loaded module the second, third, etc. times. main would be a function you export from the module that tells it you've come (back) to the "page". Your modules might look like this:
// ...code here that only runs once...
// ...perhaps it loads the markup via ajax...
export function main() {
// ...this function gets called very time the user go (back) to our "page"
}
Live example on CodeSandbox.
In older environments...
...two answers for you:
You could use eval...
You can read your code from your server as text using ajax, then evaluate it with eval. You will hear that "eval is evil" and that's not a bad high-level understanding for it. :-) The arguments against it are:
It requires parsing code; some people claim firing up a code parser is "slow" (for some definition of "slow).
It parses and evaluates arbitrary code from strings.
You can see why #2 in particular could be problematic: You have to trust the string you're evaluating. So never use eval on user-supplied content, for instance, in another user's session (User A could be trying to do something malicious with code you run in User B's session).
But in your case, you want and need both of those things, and you trust the source of the string (your server), so it's fine.
But you probably don't need to
I don't think you need that, though, even in older environments. Your code already knows what JavaScript file it needs to load for "page" X, right? So just see whether that code has already been loaded and don't load it again if it is. For instance:
function loadPage(scriptUrl, markupUrl) {
// ...
if (!document.querySelector(`script[src="${scriptUrl}"]`)) {
// ...not found, add a `script` tag for it...
} else {
// ...perhaps call a well-known function to run code that should run
// when you return to the "page"
}
// ...
}
Or if you don't want to use the DOM for it, have an object or Map or Set that you use to keep track of what you've already loaded.
Go back to old-school -- web 1.0, DOM level 1.0, has your back. Something like this would do the trick:
<html><head>
<script>
if (!document.getElementById('myScriptId')) {
document.write('<script id="myScriptId" src="/path/to/myscript"></scri' + 'pt>');
}
</script>
This technique gets everybody upset, but it works great to avoid the problems associated with doing dynamic loading via DOM script tag injection. The key is that this causes the document parser to block until the script has loaded, so you don't need to worry about onload/onready events, etc, etc.
One caveat, pull this trick near the start of your document, because you're going to cause the engine to do a partial DOM reparse and mess up speculative loading.

how do I make javascript function run in same window; it's reloading to a new page [duplicate]

I know document.write is considered bad practice; and I'm hoping to compile a list of reasons to submit to a 3rd party vendor as to why they shouldn't use document.write in implementations of their analytics code.
Please include your reason for claiming document.write as a bad practice below.
A few of the more serious problems:
document.write (henceforth DW) does not work in XHTML
DW does not directly modify the DOM, preventing further manipulation (trying to find evidence of this, but it's at best situational)
DW executed after the page has finished loading will overwrite the page, or write a new page, or not work
DW executes where encountered: it cannot inject at a given node point
DW is effectively writing serialised text which is not the way the DOM works conceptually, and is an easy way to create bugs (.innerHTML has the same problem)
Far better to use the safe and DOM friendly DOM manipulation methods
There's actually nothing wrong with document.write, per se. The problem is that it's really easy to misuse it. Grossly, even.
In terms of vendors supplying analytics code (like Google Analytics) it's actually the easiest way for them to distribute such snippets
It keeps the scripts small
They don't have to worry about overriding already established onload events or including the necessary abstraction to add onload events safely
It's extremely compatible
As long as you don't try to use it after the document has loaded, document.write is not inherently evil, in my humble opinion.
Another legitimate use of document.write comes from the HTML5 Boilerplate index.html example.
<!-- Grab Google CDN's jQuery, with a protocol relative URL; fall back to local if offline -->
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.6.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="js/libs/jquery-1.6.3.min.js"><\/script>')</script>
I've also seen the same technique for using the json2.js JSON parse/stringify polyfill (needed by IE7 and below).
<script>window.JSON || document.write('<script src="json2.js"><\/script>')</script>
It can block your page
document.write only works while the page is loading; If you call it after the page is done loading, it will overwrite the whole page.
This effectively means you have to call it from an inline script block - And that will prevent the browser from processing parts of the page that follow. Scripts and Images will not be downloaded until the writing block is finished.
Pro:
It's the easiest way to embed inline content from an external (to your host/domain) script.
You can overwrite the entire content in a frame/iframe. I used to use this technique a lot for menu/navigation pieces before more modern Ajax techniques were widely available (1998-2002).
Con:
It serializes the rendering engine to pause until said external script is loaded, which could take much longer than an internal script.
It is usually used in such a way that the script is placed within the content, which is considered bad-form.
Here's my twopence worth, in general you shouldn't use document.write for heavy lifting, but there is one instance where it is definitely useful:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/06/three_javascrip_1.html
I discovered this recently trying to create an AJAX slider gallery. I created two nested divs, and applied width/height and overflow: hidden to the outer <div> with JS. This was so that in the event that the browser had JS disabled, the div would float to accommodate the images in the gallery - some nice graceful degradation.
Thing is, as with the article above, this JS hijacking of the CSS didn't kick in until the page had loaded, causing a momentary flash as the div was loaded. So I needed to write a CSS rule, or include a sheet, as the page loaded.
Obviously, this won't work in XHTML, but since XHTML appears to be something of a dead duck (and renders as tag soup in IE) it might be worth re-evaluating your choice of DOCTYPE...
It overwrites content on the page which is the most obvious reason but I wouldn't call it "bad".
It just doesn't have much use unless you're creating an entire document using JavaScript in which case you may start with document.write.
Even so, you aren't really leveraging the DOM when you use document.write--you are just dumping a blob of text into the document so I'd say it's bad form.
It breaks pages using XML rendering (like XHTML pages).
Best: some browser switch back to HTML rendering and everything works fine.
Probable: some browser disable the document.write() function in XML rendering mode.
Worst: some browser will fire an XML error whenever using the document.write() function.
Off the top of my head:
document.write needs to be used in the page load or body load. So if you want to use the script in any other time to update your page content document.write is pretty much useless.
Technically document.write will only update HTML pages not XHTML/XML. IE seems to be pretty forgiving of this fact but other browsers will not be.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#docwrite
Chrome may block document.write that inserts a script in certain cases. When this happens, it will display this warning in the console:
A Parser-blocking, cross-origin script, ..., is invoked via
document.write. This may be blocked by the browser if the device has
poor network connectivity.
References:
This article on developers.google.com goes into more detail.
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104
Browser Violation
.write is considered a browser violation as it halts the parser from rendering the page. The parser receives the message that the document is being modified; hence, it gets blocked until JS has completed its process. Only at this time will the parser resume.
Performance
The biggest consequence of employing such a method is lowered performance. The browser will take longer to load page content. The adverse reaction on load time depends on what is being written to the document. You won't see much of a difference if you are adding a <p> tag to the DOM as opposed to passing an array of 50-some references to JavaScript libraries (something which I have seen in working code and resulted in an 11 second delay - of course, this also depends on your hardware).
All in all, it's best to steer clear of this method if you can help it.
For more info see Intervening against document.write()
I don't think using document.write is a bad practice at all. In simple words it is like a high voltage for inexperienced people. If you use it the wrong way, you get cooked. There are many developers who have used this and other dangerous methods at least once, and they never really dig into their failures. Instead, when something goes wrong, they just bail out, and use something safer. Those are the ones who make such statements about what is considered a "Bad Practice".
It's like formatting a hard drive, when you need to delete only a few files and then saying "formatting drive is a bad practice".
Based on analysis done by Google-Chrome Dev Tools' Lighthouse Audit,
For users on slow connections, external scripts dynamically injected via document.write() can delay page load by tens of seconds.
One can think of document.write() (and .innerHTML) as evaluating a source code string. This can be very handy for many applications. For example if you get HTML code as a string from some source, it is handy to just "evaluate" it.
In the context of Lisp, DOM manipulation would be like manipulating a list structure, e.g. create the list (orange) by doing:
(cons 'orange '())
And document.write() would be like evaluating a string, e.g. create a list by evaluating a source code string like this:
(eval-string "(cons 'orange '())")
Lisp also has the very useful ability to create code using list manipulation (like using the "DOM style" to create a JS parse tree). This means you can build up a list structure using the "DOM style", rather than the "string style", and then run that code, e.g. like this:
(eval '(cons 'orange '()))
If you implement coding tools, like simple live editors, it is very handy to have the ability to quickly evaluate a string, for example using document.write() or .innerHTML. Lisp is ideal in this sense, but you can do very cool stuff also in JS, and many people are doing that, like http://jsbin.com/
A simple reason why document.write is a bad practice is that you cannot come up with a scenario where you cannot find a better alternative.
Another reason is that you are dealing with strings instead of objects (it is very primitive).
It does only append to documents.
It has nothing of the beauty of for instance the MVC (Model-View-Controller) pattern.
It is a lot more powerful to present dynamic content with ajax+jQuery or angularJS.
The disadvantages of document.write mainly depends on these 3 factors:
a) Implementation
The document.write() is mostly used to write content to the screen as soon as that content is needed. This means it happens anywhere, either in a JavaScript file or inside a script tag within an HTML file. With the script tag being placed anywhere within such an HTML file, it is a bad idea to have document.write() statements inside script blocks that are intertwined with HTML inside a web page.
b) Rendering
Well designed code in general will take any dynamically generated content, store it in memory, keep manipulating it as it passes through the code before it finally gets spit out to the screen. So to reiterate the last point in the preceding section, rendering content in-place may render faster than other content that may be relied upon, but it may not be available to the other code that in turn requires the content to be rendered for processing. To solve this dilemma we need to get rid of the document.write() and implement it the right way.
c) Impossible Manipulation
Once it's written it's done and over with. We cannot go back to manipulate it without tapping into the DOM.
I think the biggest problem is that any elements written via document.write are added to the end of the page's elements. That's rarely the desired effect with modern page layouts and AJAX. (you have to keep in mind that the elements in the DOM are temporal, and when the script runs may affect its behavior).
It's much better to set a placeholder element on the page, and then manipulate it's innerHTML.

Read content of external script tag with jquery

A common pattern for loading backbone templates is something like:
<script type='text/template' id='foo'>
my template
</script>
----
var whatever = $('#foo').html();
I would like to include the script in an external file like so:
<script type='text/template' id='foo' src='myTemplate.tpl'></script>
But the html() of foo is now empty.
I watched the browser pull the template file down, but I am not sure if it is in the page dom or not. Is there a simple way to reference the content of the script in javascript, or did the browser simply ignore it and throw out the result?
I think to actually execute externally loaded script you have to do an eval() of the contents. You're not adding it to the DOM really since it's script, you're adding it to the JS runtime. There might be other ways of doing it but eval() is generally considered a security hole since malicious code could be evaluated.
What I tend to do is generate template sections on the server so I know all my JS is there when the DOM is ready.
If the point is execute an action just after the script has been loaded you can put a onload attribute on the script tag. If you want to download the content in runtime, then you could use the async download strategy (like Gats pointed).
It´s important keep in mind some important points when using templates for jquery templates in external files, there is an interesting article about jquery templates with external files, you must check it.

Is there any way, other than to use eval/handleAs: "javascript" to dynamically fetch scripts (via XMLHttpRequest)

Here I have asked a question pertaining to exceptions raised when dynamically loading scripts via XMLHttpRequest (in other words when executed via eval)
In a related question, I wanted to know whether loading scripts dynamically as such is considered bad practice to begin with. In my particular case I have an HTML Canvas element, and rather than load all possible shapes, I want to fetch them dynamically, without reloading the page, and execute them on return. The problem I am having there is that if the code associated with that shape is incorrect, the error message displayed is not very useful (indicates location of eval statement, not incorrect statement). Is there another way to dynamically fetch code from the server and execute it, while better informing the location of the exception when it occurs.
If you want to load a script use a <script> element. If you want to dynamically load a script, create the <script> element dynamically.
var script = document.createElement('SCRIPT');
script.src = "<url to load>";
document.getElementsByTagName("HEAD")[0].appendChild(script);
It's not guaranteed to be synchronous the way eval with synchronous XHR is, but ideally you'd structure your code to take advantage of asynchony.
Adding to Mike's answer, if you want good debugger support including a script tag is probably the way to go, since that is what debuggers are used to working on. The main differences from eval that you need to be aware of are:
Eval runs in the scope of where its called while included script tags run in the global scope.
Eval is synchronous while included tags run asynchronously. (You will need to use something like JSONP and dojo.io.script if you need to run code after the script tag finishes).
If the scripts are fixed you can also consider debugging them by including their script tags and deploying them as you see fit.

Categories