In an effort to write more expressive HTML, I feel custom HTML elements are a good way for any webapp or document I may write to have good meaning gleamed from the tag name itself without the use of comments.
It appears I can define a custom HTML element with:
document.registerElement("x-el");
However it also appears that I can use a custom element before defining it:
<body>
<x-salamander>abc</x-salamander>
</body>
Or even:
<salamander>abc</salamander>
I suppose this is invalid HTML, however both Firefox and Chromium proceed to display the element without any problems or console warnings.
I can even execute the following with no complaints from the browser:
document.getElementsByTagName("salamander")[0]
Using this tag name as a selector in CSS also works fine. So, what problems might I face if I use undeclared elements in this way?
The problem with what you're trying to do is not that we can tell you it will break in some expected ways. It's that when you deviate from standards in this way, no one knows what to expect. It is, by definition, undefined, and the behavior of browsers that see it is also undefined.
That said, it might work great! Here's the things to keep in mind:
The HTMLUnknownElement interface is what you're invoking to make this work in a supported way - as far as I can tell in 5 minutes of searching, it was introduced in the HTML5 spec, so in HTML5 browsers that use it appropriately, this is no longer an undefined scenario. This is where registerElement comes into play, which can take an HTMLUnknownElement and make it known.
Browsers are typically very good at coping with unexpected markup... but it won't always result in great things (see: quirks mode).
Not all browsers are created equal. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, even IE will likely have some reliable way to handle these elements reliably (even pre-HTML5)... but I have no idea what a screen reader (Lynx) or various other esoteric, outdated, niche or even future browsers will do with it.
Everyone has said the same thing, but it's worth noting: you will fail validation. It's OK to have validation errors on your page so long as you know what they are and why they are there, and this would qualify, but you'd better have a good reason.
Browsers have a long history of taking whatever you give them and trying to do something reasonable with it, so you're likely to be OK, and if you are interested in primarily targeting HTML5 browsers, then you're very likely to be OK. As with everything HTML related, the only universal advice is to test your target demographic.
First problem I can see is that IE8 and lower will not apply your styling consistently. Even with "css resets", I get issues in IE8. It's important for the browser to know whether it's dealing with a block, inline block, list, etc, as many CSS behaviors are defined by the element type.
Second, I've never tried this, but if you use jQuery or another framework, I don't think they're built to handle non HTML tags as targets. You could create issues for your coders.
And HTML validators will probably have heart-attacks, so you lose a valuable tool.
You are re-inventing the wheel here. AngularJS has already solved the problem of adding HTML elements and attributes via what it calls directives:
Angular's HTML compiler allows the developer to teach the browser new
HTML syntax. The compiler allows you to attach behavior to any HTML
element or attribute and even create new HTML elements or attributes
with custom behavior. Angular calls these behavior extensions
directives.
The goal of Angular is broader in that it treats HTML as if HTML were a tool meant to build applications instead of just display documents. To me, this broader goal gives real meaning and purpose to the ability to extend HTML as described in your question.
You should use the namespaced version document.createElementNS instead of plain document.createElement. As you can see in the snippet below,
(...your custom element...) instanceof HTMLUnknownElement
will return false if you do that (it will be true when you do it unnamespaced)
I strongly suspect that validators won't even complain, because it's in your own namespace, and the validator (unless written by a stupid person) will (at least, really really really should) acknowledge that the 'namespaced stuff' is something it doesn't know enough about to condemn it.
New (formerly custom) elements arising in future HTML versions is a certain thing to happen, and it will happen even more often for namespaced elements compared to elements in the default namespace. And the 'HTML specs crowd' is simply not in charge of what, for example, the 'SVG spec crowd' will be doing next year or in 10. And which new namespaces will be introduced by god knows who and become common. They know they are not 'in charge of that', because they aren't stupid. For those reasons, you can bet your last shirt that you will not run into any serious problems (like errors being thrown or something of that sort) when you just go ahead and use them - it's OK if you're the first one. The worst thing that could possibly happen is that they don't look (aren't rendered) the way you'd wish, if you didn't write any CSS for them; anyway, the foremost use-case are probably invisible elements (you can be sure that display:none will work on your custom elements) and "transparent containers" (which won't effect the rest of the CSS unless you have ">" somewhere in the CSS). Philosophically, what you're doing is very much akin to jQuery using class names to better be able to transform the document in certain ways. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with jQuery doing that, and if the class in question is not referenced by some CSS, that does not make the slightest difference. In the same fashion, there is absolutely nothing wrong when you use custom elements. Just use the namespaced version. That way, you're also safe to use any names that might later be added to 'proper' HTML without causing any conflicts with how those elements later will be supposed to work.
And if - surprisingly - some validator does complain, what you should do is go on with your custom elements and ditch that validator. A validator complaining about how you use your very own namespace you just came up with is akin to a traffic cop visiting you at your home and complaining about the fashion in which you use your restroom - ditch it, got me?
bucket1 = document.getElementById('bucket1');
console1 = document.getElementById('console1');
bucket2 = document.getElementById('bucket2');
console2 = document.getElementById('console2');
chicken = document.createElement('chicken');
chicken.textContent = 'gaak';
bucket1.appendChild(chicken);
console1.appendChild(document.createTextNode([
chicken instanceof HTMLUnknownElement,
chicken.namespaceURI,
chicken.tagName
].join('\n')));
rooster = document.createElementNS('myOwnNSwhereIamKing', 'roosterConFuoco');
rooster.textContent = 'gaakarissimo multo appassionata';
bucket2.appendChild(rooster);
console2.appendChild(document.createTextNode([
rooster instanceof HTMLUnknownElement,
rooster.namespaceURI,
rooster.tagName
].join('\n')));
=====chicken=====<br>
<div id='bucket1'></div>
<pre id='console1'></pre>
=====rooster=====<br>
<div id='bucket2'></div>
<pre id='console2'></pre>
MDN article
plus, you've got almost universal browser support for createElementNS.
hmmm... just found out that if you use .createElementNS, the created elements don't have the dataset property. You can still use .setAttribute('data-foo', 'bar') but .dataset.foo='bar' would have been nicer. I almost feel like downvoting my own answer above. Anyway, I hereby frown upon the browser vendors for not putting in dataset.
Related
If there is an element like this:
var c = document.createElement('a');
Then one can add the attribute name simply by doing:
c.name = "a1";
What is the purpose of setAttribute() if one can just use the dot notation?
An attribute is not the same thing as a property.
Attributes are usually created in your HTML, and will become an object member of element.attributes. Some will also set a corresponding property.
There are some attributes that update when you change the property, but others that do not. For example, the .value property will not change the attribute on input elements. Or custom properties do not become custom attributes.
Most of the time you probably want to set the property, but if you want to change the attribute, then in some cases you must use setAttribute
Who says you can do either?
Well, okay you can. But seriously, "who says?", because it mostly comes down to that.
In the beginning, there was Netscape Navigator 2, the first web browser to support Javascript, and indeed being a few months prior to server-side use in Netscape Enterprise Server, the first anything to support Javascript (called "Livescript" in a beta version but quickly renamed "Javascript" because it was 1995 and putting the word "java" in anything was a sure-fire way to get about 20,000 column-inches out of tech journalists who spent the rest of their time wondering confused around coffee wholesalers wondering where the press releases and promotional schwag was).
The object model at the time was pretty small, to the point that you could learn it to the point where you could hold the entire model in your head in a couple of days. For most elements, you couldn't actually do very much with them. A lot of things were quite fiddly (where you can find the current value of a <select id="selId" name="selName"> today with document.getElementById('selId').value and a few other ways, then you would need document.forms[0]["selName"].options[document.forms[0]["selName"].selectedIndex].value.
Then IE3 came out with Javascript too, NN 3 upped the ante by letting you change an image's src attribute. The browser wars had begun in earnest. Many veterans are still haunted by the memories of what they did.
The really obvious way to make a browser's document model better, was to have more and more things reflected by properties - preferably writable rather than read-only. The next-best thing was to have a slightly simpler and easier to remember way of changing something than the other browser (then they might make more web pages that worked in the latest version of your browser and didn't in your rival's).
Through keeping up a rapid pace of development, it was clear that Netscape would develop a new middleware platform that would make the position of Microsoft and Apple irrelevant, while the jury was out on whether yahoo or alta-vista had the approach to search and/or directory that would dominate the web. (Don't make long-term predictions about technology).
During the general trend of make-script-able-to-do-everything-to-everything, a lot of properties got named after the corresponding attribute when there was one, which is after all a pretty sensible way.
This is a bit inconsistent though. For one thing, most properties that correspond to attributes map string values to string values in a straight-forward way. One or two do not, such as the href attribute on anchor elements which gives you a richer object with properties reflecting parts of the URI (mostly because it was available from the early days before make-script-able-to-do-everything-to-everything). Which is both useful (if you want to break the URI down) and a nuisance because there's no good way of telling which is which.
At the height of this, they had something called DHTML, and something called dHTML, which were two ways to do pretty much the same thing in completely incompatible ways.
There's also the fact that javascript is loose in letting you add a new property to anything, and HTML lets you add in new attributes (debatable, depending on how strictly you stay to which standard, but this was the browser wars and new proprietary attributes were seemingly added by one browser or another every 4 minutes). Knowing whether a property would have any real effect on any given browser was a nuisance.
Meanwhile, in a distant International Standards Consortium, something called XML was being developed. It let you add all sorts of elements with all sorts of attributes in all sorts of ways. Ways of dealing with this in script were also added.
We needed a way to more consistently change the attributes of elements than that currently existing, and since it was obvious that all future versions of HTML would be XML applications (Don't make long-term predictions about technology) it made sense for it to be at least relatively consistent between the two.
It was also dawning on everyone, that having a more popular browser than everyone else wasn't going to turn anyone into the next Bill Gates (not even the current Bill Gates) so the advantages of having greater support for standard approaches rather than greater flashy-stuff-the-other-guy-can't-do became more apparent.
The W3C DOM became more and more finalised and more and more supported. It gave us a more consistent way of setting attributes. It was more verbose, but you could know consistently what it was going to do, and it was also more powerful in creating, copying, changing and deleting parts of a document.
But old sites had to be kept going if possible, along with the fact that it does remain a useful shorthand for a lot of attributes to just set the corresponding property, so people weren't going to stop using it. Still, the DOM approach is supported to some extent by all browsers, giving much more consistency between them.
And then half the developers started using JQuery anyway.
This is to make some custom attribute:
while its all fine to make el.name='aaa';
if you make el.customsttr='a' it will not work.
-- (unless it has been already defined, as pointed out below)
http://jsfiddle.net/sXdHB/
Application:
For example you have an img, with attr 'src', then you might want to add a custom atribute 'big_src' and then read it through some script to display a bigger one;
I'd use getAttribute/setAttribute to make it clear that you're working with DOM elements. Minimizing ambiguity is a plus!
However, this is what quirksmode.org has to say about atrributes:
Attributes
A bloody mess. Try influencing attributes in this order:
Try getting or setting a specific property, like x.id or y.onclick.
If there is no specific property, use getAttribute() or
setAttribute().
If even that doesn't work, try any other method or
property in the table below. Most have horrible browser
incompatibility patterns, though.
Avoid attributes[]. It's worse
than anything else.
I've got this example page where I'm trying to put the wmode of every youtube element inside the page to "transparent".
To do it I need to get all the "object > params" and "embed" tags in the page.
The page I link you works like charm in all the browser except for IE6 (haven't cheked the other IEs yet).
With IE6 I can't catch the "params" since document.getElementsByTagName('param') returns an empty object, but this doesn't happen with the "embed"!
It won't work with document.getElementsByTagName('object') as well
Here is the page http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4064417/provaJs.html
Any suggestion why it's not returning just the "param" tags?
Thank you in advance!
I recall some issue with <param/> tags and getElementsByTagName, but it's ages that I don't code in IE6. Instead of querying from document, trying to get the params calling getElementsByTagName from the <object /> itself and see if it helps:
var objects = document.getElementsByTagName("object");
for (var i = 0, object; object = objects[i++];) {
var params = object.getElementsByTagName("param");
alert(params.length);
}
I understand that you would like to keep your app backwards compatible, but this exercise runs counter-intuitive to the general direction of the industry and its efforts to put IE6 down to rest (even google has dropped support for IE6). Your time might be better invested if you focus on building a better web experience for pseudo-modern browsers instead of worrying about the legacy ones.
Food for thought - maybe use a browser detection script and encourage your users to upgrade so that they can experience your site in all of its modern glory :)
All that being said, ZER0's suggestion is dead-on. Find the "object" tags in the page, and then iterate through its children until you find the tag you're looking for. If you can't seem to grab the object tags with getElementsByTagName, you may very well have to iterate through the document.body.childNodes nodelist, checking for the typeof(N) or N.NodeName along the way.
If you must support browsers as old IE6, I would strongly recommend using a library such as jQuery rather than trying to access the DOM directly.
IE6 has a massive number of bugs and quirks that can break even the simplest and most innocuous of Javascript code. jQuery goes to great lengths to abstract these browser bugs and deficiencies away from the developer, allowing you to write code that works on all browsers.
For example rather than using document.getElementsByTagName('object'), you can use the jQuery code $('object'), which will give you the same end result, but will work around any bugs in whichever browser your end user is running.
jQuery does a whole lot more than just hide the browser bugs, of course, but if you're working with IE6, that alone is a good enough reason to use it.
(other libraries are of course available if you really don't like jQuery for some reason)
I've noticed that jQuery can create, and access non-existent/non-standard HTML tags. For example,
$('body').append('<fake></fake>').html('blah');
var foo = $('fake').html(); // foo === 'blah'
Will this break in some kind of validation? Is it a bad idea, or are there times this is useful? The main question is, although it can be done, should it be done?
Thanks in advance!
You can use non-standard HTML tags and most of the browsers should work fine, that's why you can use HTML5 tags in browsers that don't recognize them and all you need to do is tell them how to style them (particularly which tags are display: block). But I wouldn't recommend doing it for two reasons: first it breaks validation, and second you may use some tag that will later get added to HTML and suddenly your page stops working in newer browsers.
The biggest issue I see with this is that if you create a tag that's useful to you, who's to say it won't someday become standard? If that happens it may end up playing a role or get styles that you don't anticipate, breaking your code.
The rules of HTML do say that if manipulated through script the result should be valid both before and after the manipulation.
Validation is a means to an end, so if it works for you in some way, then I wouldn't worry too much about it. That said, I wouldn't do it to "sneak" past validation while using something like facebook's <fb:fan /> element - I'd just suck it up and admit the code wasn't valid.
HTML as such allows you to use any markup you like. Browsers may react differently to unknown tags (and don't they to known ones, too?), but the general bottom line is that they ignore unknown tags and try to render their contents instead.
So technically, nothing is stopping you from using <fake> elements (compare what IE7 would do with an HTML5 page and the new tags defined there). HTML standardization has always been an after-the-fact process. Browser vendors invented tags and at some point the line was drawn and it was called HTMLx.
The real question is, if you positively must do it. And if you care whether the W3C validator likes your document or not. Or if you care whether your fellow programmers like your document or not.
If you can do the same and stay within the standard, it's not worth the hassle.
There's really no reason to do something like this. The better way is to use classes like
<p class = "my_class">
And then do something like
$('p.my_class').html('bah');
Edit:
The main reason that it's bad to use fake tags is because it makes your HTML invalid and could screw up the rendering of your page on certain browsers since they don't know how to treat the tag you've created (though most would treat it as some kind of DIV).
That's the main reason this isn't good, it just breaks standards and leads to confusing code that is difficult to maintain because you have to explain what your custom tags are for.
If you were really determined to use custom tags, you could make your web page a valid XML file and then use XSLT to transform the XML into valid HTML. But in this case, I'd just stick with classes.
I have noticed while monitoring/attempting to answer common jQuery questions, that there are certain practices using javascript, instead of jQuery, that actually enable you to write less and do ... well the same amount. And may also yield performance benefits.
A specific example
$(this) vs this
Inside a click event referencing the clicked objects id
jQuery
$(this).attr("id");
Javascript
this.id;
Are there any other common practices like this? Where certain Javascript operations could be accomplished easier, without bringing jQuery into the mix. Or is this a rare case? (of a jQuery "shortcut" actually requiring more code)
EDIT : While I appreciate the answers regarding jQuery vs. plain javascript performance, I am actually looking for much more quantitative answers. While using jQuery, instances where one would actually be better off (readability/compactness) to use plain javascript instead of using $(). In addition to the example I gave in my original question.
this.id (as you know)
this.value (on most input types. only issues I know are IE when a <select> doesn't have value properties set on its <option> elements, or radio inputs in Safari.)
this.className to get or set an entire "class" property
this.selectedIndex against a <select> to get the selected index
this.options against a <select> to get a list of <option> elements
this.text against an <option> to get its text content
this.rows against a <table> to get a collection of <tr> elements
this.cells against a <tr> to get its cells (td & th)
this.parentNode to get a direct parent
this.checked to get the checked state of a checkbox Thanks #Tim Down
this.selected to get the selected state of an option Thanks #Tim Down
this.disabled to get the disabled state of an input Thanks #Tim Down
this.readOnly to get the readOnly state of an input Thanks #Tim Down
this.href against an <a> element to get its href
this.hostname against an <a> element to get the domain of its href
this.pathname against an <a> element to get the path of its href
this.search against an <a> element to get the querystring of its href
this.src against an element where it is valid to have a src
...I think you get the idea.
There will be times when performance is crucial. Like if you're performing something in a loop many times over, you may want to ditch jQuery.
In general you can replace:
$(el).attr('someName');
with:
Above was poorly worded. getAttribute is not a replacement, but it does retrieve the value of an attribute sent from the server, and its corresponding setAttribute will set it. Necessary in some cases.
The sentences below sort of covered it. See this answer for a better treatment.
el.getAttribute('someName');
...in order to access an attribute directly. Note that attributes are not the same as properties (though they mirror each other sometimes). Of course there's setAttribute too.
Say you had a situation where received a page where you need to unwrap all tags of a certain type. It is short and easy with jQuery:
$('span').unwrap(); // unwrap all span elements
But if there are many, you may want to do a little native DOM API:
var spans = document.getElementsByTagName('span');
while( spans[0] ) {
var parent = spans[0].parentNode;
while( spans[0].firstChild ) {
parent.insertBefore( spans[0].firstChild, spans[0]);
}
parent.removeChild( spans[0] );
}
This code is pretty short, it performs better than the jQuery version, and can easily be made into a reusable function in your personal library.
It may seem like I have an infinite loop with the outer while because of while(spans[0]), but because we're dealing with a "live list" it gets updated when we do the parent.removeChild(span[0]);. This is a pretty nifty feature that we miss out on when working with an Array (or Array-like object) instead.
The correct answer is that you'll always take a performance penalty when using jQuery instead of 'plain old' native JavaScript. That's because jQuery is a JavaScript Library. It is not some fancy new version of JavaScript.
The reason that jQuery is powerful is that it makes some things which are overly tedious in a cross-browser situation (AJAX is one of the best examples) and smooths over the inconsistencies between the myriad of available browsers and provides a consistent API. It also easily facilitates concepts like chaining, implied iteration, etc, to simplify working on groups of elements together.
Learning jQuery is no substitute for learning JavaScript. You should have a firm basis in the latter so that you fully appreciate what knowing the former is making easier for you.
-- Edited to encompass comments --
As the comments are quick to point out (and I agree with 100%) the statements above refer to benchmarking code. A 'native' JavaScript solution (assuming it is well written) will outperform a jQuery solution that accomplishes the same thing in nearly every case (I'd love to see an example otherwise). jQuery does speed up development time, which is a significant benefit which I do not mean to downplay. It facilitates easy to read, easy to follow code, which is more than some developers are capable of creating on their own.
In my opinion then, the answer depends on what you're attempting to achieve. If, as I presumed based on your reference to performance benefits, you're after the best possible speed out of your application, then using jQuery introduces overhead every time you call $(). If you're going for readability, consistency, cross browser compatibility, etc, then there are certainly reasons to favor jQuery over 'native' JavaScript.
There's a framework called... oh guess what? Vanilla JS. Hope you get the joke... :D It sacrifices code legibility for performance... Comparing it to jQuery bellow you can see that retrieving a DOM element by ID is almost 35X faster. :)
So if you want performance you'd better try Vanilla JS and draw your own conclusions. Maybe you won't experience JavaScript hanging the browser's GUI/locking up the UI thread during intensive code like inside a for loop.
Vanilla JS is a fast, lightweight, cross-platform framework for
building incredible, powerful JavaScript applications.
On their homepage there's some perf comparisons:
There's already an accepted answer but I believe no answer typed directly here can be comprehensive in its list of native javascript methods/attributes that has practically guaranteed cross-browser support. For that may I redirect you to quirksmode:
http://www.quirksmode.org/compatibility.html
It is perhaps the most comprehensive list of what works and what doesn't work on what browser anywhere. Pay particular attention to the DOM section. It is a lot to read but the point is not to read it all but to use it as a reference.
When I started seriously writing web apps I printed out all the DOM tables and hung them on the wall so that I know at a glance what is safe to use and what requires hacks. These days I just google something like quirksmode parentNode compatibility when I have doubts.
Like anything else, judgement is mostly a matter of experience. I wouldn't really recommend you to read the entire site and memorize all the issues to figure out when to use jQuery and when to use plain JS. Just be aware of the list. It's easy enough to search. With time you will develop an instinct of when plain JS is preferable.
PS: PPK (the author of the site) also has a very nice book that I do recommend reading
When:
you know that there is unflinching cross-browser support for what you are doing, and
it is not significantly more code to type, and
it is not significantly less readable, and
you are reasonably confident that jQuery will not choose different implementations based on the browser to achieve better performance, then:
use JavaScript. Otherwise use jQuery (if you can).
Edit: This answer applies both when choosing to use jQuery overall versus leaving it out, as well as choosing whether to to use vanilla JS inside jQuery. Choosing between attr('id') and .id leans in favor of JS, while choosing between removeClass('foo') versus .className = .className.replace( new Regexp("(?:^|\\s+)"+foo+"(?:\\s+|$)",'g'), '' ) leans in favor of jQuery.
Others' answers have focused on the broad question of "jQuery vs. plain JS." Judging from your OP, I think you were simply wondering when it's better to use vanilla JS if you've already chosen to use jQuery. Your example is a perfect example of when you should use vanilla JS:
$(this).attr('id');
Is both slower and (in my opinion) less readable than:
this.id.
It's slower because you have to spin up a new JS object just to retrieve the attribute the jQuery way. Now, if you're going to be using $(this) to perform other operations, then by all means, store that jQuery object in a variable and operate with that. However, I've run into many situations where I just need an attribute from the element (like id or src).
Are there any other common practices
like this? Where certain Javascript
operations could be accomplished
easier, without bringing jQuery into
the mix. Or is this a rare case? (of a
jQuery "shortcut" actually requiring
more code)
I think the most common case is the one you describe in your post; people wrapping $(this) in a jQuery object unnecessarily. I see this most often with id and value (instead using $(this).val()).
Edit: Here's an article that explains why using jQuery in the attr() case is slower. Confession: stole it from the tag wiki, but I think it's worth mentioning for the question.
Edit again: Given the readability/performance implications of just accessing attributes directly, I'd say a good rule of thumb is probably to try to to use this.<attributename> when possible. There are probably some instances where this won't work because of browser inconsistencies, but it's probably better to try this first and fall back on jQuery if it doesn't work.
If you are mostly concerned about performance, your main example hits the nail on the head. Invoking jQuery unnecessarily or redundantly is, IMHO, the second main cause of slow performance (the first being poor DOM traversal).
It's not really an example of what you're looking for, but I see this so often that it bears mentioning: One of the best ways to speed up performance of your jQuery scripts is to cache jQuery objects, and/or use chaining:
// poor
$(this).animate({'opacity':'0'}, function() { $(this).remove(); });
// excellent
var element = $(this);
element.animate({'opacity':'0'}, function() { element.remove(); });
// poor
$('.something').load('url');
$('.something').show();
// excellent
var something = $('#container').children('p.something');
something.load('url').show();
I've found there is certainly overlap between JS and JQ. The code you've shown is a good example of that. Frankly, the best reason to use JQ over JS is simply browser compatibility. I always lean toward JQ, even if I can accomplish something in JS.
This is my personal view, but as jQuery is JavaScript anyway, I think theoretically it cannot perform better than vanilla JS ever.
But practically it may perform better than hand-written JS, as one's hand-written code may be not as efficient as jQuery.
Bottom-line - for smaller stuff I tend to use vanilla JS, for JS intensive projects I like to use jQuery and not reinvent the wheel - it's also more productive.
The first answer's live properties list of this as a DOM element is quite complete.
You may find also interesting to know some others.
When this is the document :
this.forms to get an HTMLCollection of the current document forms,
this.anchors to get an HTMLCollection of all the HTMLAnchorElements with name being set,
this.links to get an HTMLCollection of all the HTMLAnchorElements with href being set,
this.images to get an HTMLCollection of all the HTMLImageElements
and the same with the deprecated applets as this.applets
When you work with document.forms, document.forms[formNameOrId] gets the so named or identified form.
When this is a form :
this[inputNameOrId] to get the so named or identified field
When this is form field:
this.type to get the field type
When learning jQuery selectors, we often skip learning already existing HTML elements properties, which are so fast to access.
As usual I'm coming late to this party.
It wasn't the extra functionality that made me decide to use jQuery, as attractive as that was. After all nothing stops you from writing your own functions.
It was the fact that there were so many tricks to learn when modifying the DOM to avoid memory leaks (I'm talking about you IE). To have one central resource that managed all those sort of issues for me, written by people who were a whole lot better JS coders than I ever will be, that was being continually reviewed, revised and tested was god send.
I guess this sort of falls under the cross browser support/abstraction argument.
And of course jQuery does not preclude the use of straight JS when you needed it. I always felt the two seemed to work seamlessly together.
Of course if your browser is not supported by jQuery or you are supporting a low end environment (older phone?) then a large .js file might be a problem. Remember when jQuery used to be tiny?
But normally the performance difference is not an issue of concern. It only has to be fast enough. With Gigahertz of CPU cycles going to waste every second, I'm more concerned with the performance of my coders, the only development resources that doesn't double in power every 18 months.
That said I'm currently looking into accessibility issues and apparently .innerHTML is a bit of a no no with that. jQuery of course depends on .innerHTML, so now I'm looking for a framework that will depend on the somewhat tedious methods that are allowed. And I can imagine such a framework will run slower than jQuery, but as long as it performs well enough, I'll be happy.
Here's a non-technical answer - many jobs may not allow certain libraries, such as jQuery.
In fact, In fact, Google doesn't allow jQuery in any of their code (nor React, because it's owned by Facebook), which you might not have known until the interviewer says "Sorry, but you cant use jQuery, it's not on the approved list at XYZ Corporation". Vanilla JavaScript works absolutely everywhere, every time, and will never give you this problem. If you rely on a library yes you get speed and ease, but you lose universality.
Also, speaking of interviewing, the other downside is that if you say you need to use a library to solve a JavaScript problem during a code quiz, it comes across like you don't actually understand the problem, which looks kinda bad. Whereas if you solve it in raw vanilla JavaScript it demonstrates that you actually understand and can solve every part of whatever problem they throw in front of you.
$(this) is different to this :
By using $(this) you are ensuring the jQuery prototype is being passed onto the object.
Is there any particular reason that it isn't in any of the the specs?
It seems to be supported in all browsers, (although I'll admit it doesn't work right in all of them...since you have to use libraries like innerXHTML to get it to work right thanks to Internet Explorer.
Is innerHTML in danger of disappearing from forthcoming versions of browsers? If not shouldn't they just add it already?
I'm marking this community wiki as I know I'm gonna take a beating on my rep for this...but I just wondered why...
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#innerhtml
There's absolutely no way it's in danger, thousands of applications rely on it and doing so would be a horrible idea.
I'll admit it doesn't work right in all of them...since you have to use libraries like innerXHTML to get it to work right thanks to Internet Explorer.
IE invented innerHTML; you can't really expect it to work any better than it does there.
Is there any particular reason that it isn't in any of the the specs?
It's proposed for HTML5, for what it's worth. There is certainly no danger of it disappearing in the future, though you should continue to use it only for the simple cases where you are writing straight ‘block’ or ‘inline’ element content. Special cases like tables and selects are going to continue to be troublesome.
IE, being the inventor of dynamically modifying the content has gone with it all the way - other browsers didn't!
Passing the string as innerHTML means that the string will get through a normalization process before it gets passed to the element. Meaning it will get transformed fom a string into a proper html parsing content.
Firefox implemented it wrongly. It doesn't distinguish between html:innerHTML and html:innerText and plain string:text. The difference is literally obvious for IE, but not for FF. Hence the difference in handling situations and the confusion of FF only coders when they go back to the master.