I have read about several ways to embed Javascript in HTML document.
First, in head section:
<head>
...
<script src="abc.js"></script>
</head>
Second, in the end of document's body:
<body>
<!-- content -->
<script src="abc.js"></script>
</body>
First way is more esthetic, but second version assures that all the items in DOM are loaded. I use HTML5 (but probably it doesn't matter)
Which way is better and why?
if it is just a library of functions which aren't suppose to run when the page loads, you can safely put it in the head. Otherwise you need to wrap the code in abc.js with window.onload or $(document).ready(); and then embed it in the head
It depends on when you need the functionality in the script.
Before page load or else.
If it doesn't matter the second one in your example is better and more seciure since it allows the page content to load.
An error in the script may prevent for this to happen in before body case.
A lot depends on when you need script to execute if you need the page to be fully loaded or not. You can possibly put it in the head then execute a function with the onload event.
Related
I have a simple Javascript function that can be placed anywhere within HTML document. So I put it right below the closing , for example:
<html>
<body>
Some text.
<script>
document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0].innerHTML='hello';
</script>
</body>
</html>
My question is - would it make sense (from page load speed point of view) to load this script via the addEventListener("load") function instead? Ie. if I use this code below - which would be preferred? I understand that when Javascript is on the bottom of the page, it won't 'block' page rendering anyway, so using the addEventListener may only slow the execution down?
<html>
<body>
Some text.
<script>
window.addEventListener("load",function()
{document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0].innerHTML='hello';},
false);
</script>
</body>
</html>
Scripts should generally not be placed directly in the HTML like that, because they block further HTML parsing until they're executed. While it's not a problem if you have only one script, what if you have two, or three, or more, and some of them might take more than a handful of ms to parse?
Still, assuming that blocking isn't an issue, there's no real difference on way or the other, from the UX point of view.
Scripts, being information about how to interact with the content, but aren't actually content themselves, belong in the <head> IMO. If you don't like wrapping everything in a load listener, you can use the defer attribute to automatically run the script once the whole HTML has been parsed: <script src="..." defer>.
Apologies for the dumb sounding question, but I need the experts to clarify.
Out of the three places to put JavaScript, head, $(document).ready, or body, where would the best place be to put some ajax that uses a lot of $GET functions?
For instance I am using a JavaScript function called execute_send() but I am unsure where the best place to put it would be. Below is the error:
Problem at line 67 character 22: 'execute_send' was used before it was defined.
function execute_send() {
Also how does the placement affect the page loading time?
In general, unless for some reason you need it elsewhere, put all of your JS last in the body. The browser won't continue until it's parsed your JS, so it is nice to let the page load first. See http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html
As an example of when you might actually want to put JS in the head: You might have some A/B testing code that you want to run before the page even renders - in that case, the code should go in the head, because you really do want it to run as soon as possible.
As #Thom Blake said, in general the best place is at the bottom of the <body> (+1 for that) - but I'll expand on that a bit:
The reason for this is that as the browser loads the page, it has to stop loading and parse the JavaScript when it encounters it. So if you have all your scripts in the <head> for instance, there will be a delay in loading all the content in the <body>
Note that this is a delay in loading - separate from the actual execution of the script. Something like $(document).ready() deals with when the script is executed, not with when it is loaded.
Generally, all this matters because you want a web page to feel as responsive as possible, so a best practice list for JavaScript will usually be along these lines:
Place all your scripts at the bottom of the <body> so that the loading of non-JS resources, such as images, is not delayed.
Combine your scripts into a single file, so that the server has to make fewer requests for resources (you'll see this referred to as "minimizing HTTP requests")
Minify you scripts, to reduce their total size, which speeds up loading times
Put any code reliant on the DOM (eg click handlers, HTML manipulation, etc) inside $(document).ready() (or the equivalent method for the JS library in use on the page).
Same subject : whats-pros-and-cons-putting-javascript-in-head-and-putting-just-before-the-body
In the past, i experienced some jquery problems has it was not 'loader' when initialising .. this is why we decided to insert it in the <head>.
In some situations it's not easy to move scripts to the bottom. If, for example, the script uses document.write to insert part of the page's content, it can't be moved lower in the page. There might also be scoping issues. In many cases, there are ways to workaround these situations.
For the rest of javascripts, all before the closing </body> tag.
To explain the 'Why page will load faster' : It wont.
Browsers are single threaded, so it’s understandable that while a script is executing the browser is unable to start other downloads. But there’s no reason that while the script is downloading the browser can’t start downloading other resources. And that’s exactly what newer browsers, including Internet Explorer 8, Safari 4, and Chrome 2, have done.
The difference is visible has your ressources within the <body> tag will load/show sequencialy. When the browser gets to load <script src=...js> the complete file has to be loader before the browser can fetch another ressource. So, it's an illusion, because the browser will load/di more 'visible' content before 'javascripts'.
To visualise the whole thing : firebug > Net (tab)
As stated before, $(document).ready is not a place. (For jQuery, $(document).ready simply ensures that the DOM is fully loaded (ready to manipulate) before any script is executed.) You would place your JavaScript in the <head> or the <body>.
However, putting all of your JavaScript includes and JavaScripts at the bottom of the <body> section is best for loading performance. "Progressive Rendering" and "Parallel Downloading" are blocked for everything below the scripts. If your scripts are the last thing on the page, you're not blocking anything.
This article explains it in more depth.
Example:
<html>
<head>
<!-- MY HEAD CONTENT - LOAD ALL CSS -->
</head>
<body>
<!-- MY HTML CODE -->
<!-- START javascript -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="/ajax/jquery/jquery-1.6.2.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/ajax/jquery/plugins/jquery.random_plugin.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/includes/some_other_scripts.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
//<![CDATA[
$(document).ready(function(){
// my jQuery/JavaScript code
});
//]]>
</script><!-- END javascript -->
</body>
</html>
I have a every common page a.html which looks like this:
<html>
<head>
<script type="text/javascript" src="xyz.js" > </script>
</head>
<body>
<div> ... </div>
</body>
</html>
In b.html, I use jquery's .load() function to a div.
$("#myDiv").load("a.html")
It works. The xyz.js's content is loaded along with a.html. But why isn't there a <script> tag? I open firebug to see the source. There is a's but no a's <script>.
I want the <script> because I need it to find relative path.
(this question)
Edit: I tried to use .get() and .html(). Didn't help.
Edit2: The title is not very appropriate. The xyz.js runs. But no <script>.
The .load() function purposefully strips out <script> tags from the loaded content. When you give it a plain URL to load, it will execute the scripts after loading the content and adding it to the DOM. However, if you use the trick of adding a selector after the URL in the first argument:
$('#foo').load("http://some.domain.com/blah #special-div");
then it strips the <script> tags but it does not execute them.
Why? I don't know.
Now, please note that loading an entire page from the <html> tag on down into an element of another page is going to result in some sort of Frankenstein monster of a DOM, if a browser will do it at all. Generally, when you use ".load()" to grab fragments of content to update a page, your server should respond with a piece of a page, not the whole thing. The jQuery deal with allowing a selector after the actual URL is intended to let you strip out a chunk of a page, which is really cool, but it has that drawback that the scripts won't be executed in that case.
Because, it cannot run the script inside the <SCRIPT> tag. jQuery has .getScript() to call for scripts only. Check here
If you have JS code which is intended to run as part of loading/building the page, where in the HTML should this go? For instance modifying a <div> or adding some links.
Should this be put in the <body>, interspersed with HTML? Or should it be between the <head> and <body> elements? What order do things happen in - the order they are in the page or does HTML all happen before (non-<head>) JS is run?
If you have JS code which is intended to run as part of loading/building the page, where in the HTML should this go?
Just before the closing </body> tag is emerging as the best practice barring a specific requirement for it to be elsewhere (which there can sometimes be). It's the recommendation of the YUI folks, for instance, but it's not just them.
What order do things happen in - the order they are in the page or does HTML all happen before (non-) JS is run?
When a script tag is encountered, unless you use the defer or async attribute (and the browser supports them), all HTML parsing comes to a screeching halt and the script is downloaded and handed to the JavaScript interpreter. When the JavaScript interpreter finishes processing the script, the HTML parser can continue. It has to do this because the JavaScript can insert tokens into the HTML stream via document.write. This is also why you can load a script file and then load a second script file that relies on the first, and know that they'll get loaded in the right order. It's also why you can't access elements that are further down in the HTML stream from a script higher up in it unless you defer your code somehow (window.onload or the "DOM loaded" events many libraries support, such as jQuery's ready or Prototype's dom:loaded).
An upshot of this is that the typical practice of putting script tags in the head actually slows down the apparent load time of the page, unless those script tags need to be there for some reason. Hence the recommendation to put them just before the closing </body> tag.
There's a "gotcha" you have to watch for, though: If you have parts of the page that you want to respond to with JavaScript if the user has it enabled, loading your script at the very end leaves a brief but real race condition lying around: The user can interact with the page while your script is being downloaded. There are a variety of ways of handling that. My favorite is to detect whether JavaScript is enabled with inline script (not a separate file) in the head element and, if so, to put in a document-level handler for things where possible (you can do this with click events, for instance) which basically queues up or disables the click during that very brief period of time. That way, if JavaScript is enabled, you'll avoid the race condition, but if it isn't, any unobtrusive fallback you have in place will work.
The whole HTML file is executed in the order it is written, that means
<html>
<div id="ID"></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
document.getElementById('ID').innerHTML = "HELLO";
</script>
</html>
changes the contents of the div, wherease
<html>
<script type="text/javascript">
document.getElementById('ID').innerHTML = "HELLO";
</script>
<div id="ID"></div>
</html>
does not, because the JS code is executed before the div has loaded.
EDIT: If you want the JS to run after the page has loaded use window.onload or document.body.onload or
<body onload="...">
Alternatively if you're using a JS library such as jQuery, you can use
$(document).ready(function() {
...
});
Put them as functions in its own .js file which you include by <script src> at end of HTML <head> or <body>. If any of them needs to be executed during document load, call it using window.onload or whatever load function the JS library/framework offers, if you are using any.
As to the exact location, putting them in end of <head> allows them to be downloaded before the HTML page is been shown in browser and putting them in end of <body> allows the page to be shown a tad sooner because downloading the scripts will block the page rendering, thus it's a better speed experience.
However, IMO, it's a bit more robust to have the scripts downloaded before the page is rendered whenever you have some page elements which cannot be used without JS. In case of an impatient user this would otherwise lead to unusable elements.
I'd put it in a separate .js file and wrap the code so it is executed after the DOM is loaded. If you use a framework like jQuery or Prototype this should be easy.
For best performance place your JavaScript files at the BOTTOM of the HTML page you are serving.
To ensure that everything is set when you try to use it, execute only after the DOM is ready (there are multiple variations of this, my advice: Use a JavaScript Library).
You can put a script tag in the head, body, between the two, and more. You can put it most places but see this for a more in depth look.
If I keep JavaScript code at bottom or keep JavaScript code in <head> inside document.ready, are both same thing?
I'm confused between these two methodologies, http://api.jquery.com/ready/ and http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#js_bottom.
Is there any benefit to putting JavaScript code at bottom (just before </body>) even if I keep the code inside.
$(document).ready(function() {
// code here
});
As JavaScript is attached in
<head>
<script type="text/javascript" src="example.js"></script>
</head>
In General, your should put your Javascript files at the bottom of your HTML file.
That is even more important if you're using "classical" <script> tag files. Most browsers (even modern ones) will block the UI thread and therefore the render process of your HTML markup while loading & executing javascript.
That in turn means, if you're loading a decent amount of Javascript at the top of your page, the user will expire a "slow" loading of your page, because he will see your whole markup after all your script has been loaded and executed.
To make this problem even worse, most browsers will not download javascript files in a parallel mode. If you have a something like this:
<script type="javascript" src="/path/file1.js"></script>
<script type="javascript" src="/path/file2.js"></script>
<script type="javascript" src="/path/file3.js"></script>
your browser will
load file1.js
execute file1.js
load file2.js
execute file2.js
load file3.js
execute file3.js
and while doing so, both the UI thread and the rendering process are blocked.
Some browsers like Chrome finally started to load script files in parallel mode which makes that whole problem a little bit less of an issue.
Another way to "workaround" that problem is to use dynamic script tag insertion. Which basically means you only load one javascript file over a <script> tag. This (loader) script then dynamically creates <script> tags and inserts them into your markup. That works asyncronously and is way better (in terms of performance).
They will load all the same in terms of you being able to access the code.
The differences are in the perceived speed of loading of the page. If the javascript is last it will not block any CSS that is trying to be downloaded, which should always be at the top, and will not block any images that need to be downloaded.
Browsers only ask for items as they find them in the HTML but they only have a limited amount of download streams (~10 in modern browsers) so if you doing a lot of requests for images/css and for JS something is going to lose and the perceived speed/ user experience of the page load of your page will take a hit.
They are not the same thing as the ready event is fired when the DOM tree has been built, while scripts at the end of the page may actually execute afterward.
Either way, they're both safe entry points for your app's execution.
The Yahoo! Developer site is saying that if you put JavaScript at the bottom of the page, it won't block loading of other resources by the browser. This will make the page's initial load quicker.
jQuery is specifying a function to load when the entire page has loaded.
If you have a function which executes on page load, it won't matter whether you include it in <head> or at the bottom of the page, it will be executed at the same time.
It's important to consider what the JavaScript is actually doing on your page when deciding where to put it. In most cases, the time it takes to load and run JavaScript makes placing it at the end of the page more logical. However, if the page rendering itself depends on Ajax calls or similar, this might not be the case.
Here's a good read on the subject of document.ready() not being appropriate for all JS.
Position of <script> tag don't involve your script if you use document.ready.
It seems JavaScript is charged faster when placed before </body> but I'm not sure.
Even with the script at the bottom of the HTML document, the DOM may not be fully loaded. All closed elements above the script will typically be ready, a DOM ready event may be necessary in corner cases.