We Keep Coding

JavaScript HTML injection efficiency/best practice

I'm looking to inject HTML via JavaScript into a page at work.
What I'd like to know is if injecting a re-write of the page is more or less efficient than injecting snippets throughout the page with methods like getElementById().
For example:
document.getElementById("Example").innerHTML = '<h2 id="Example" name="Example">Text</H2>'
document.getElementsByClassName("Example").innerHTML = '<H1>Test</H1>'
...etc. Is this more efficient/effective than simply injecting my own version of the entire page's HTML start to finish?
Edit: Per Lix's comment, I should clarify that I likely will be injecting a large amount of content into the page, but it will affect no more than a dozen elements at any time.

If your project can manage it, it could be better to create DOM Elements and append them to the tree.
The big problem with efficiency would be that setting .innerHTML property would first remove all the nodes and only then parse the html and append it to the DOM.
It's obvious that you should avoid removing and the re-appending identical elements, so if you're sure the "Example" elements would always remain on the page, your way of setting them seems to be a nice optimazation.
If you want to optimize it even further, you could parse the html you want to append to nodes and have a function that checks which ones should be appended and which one shouldn't. But be aware that accessing the DOM is costly. Read more about the ECMA-DOM bridge.
Edit: In some cases it might be better to let the browser do the html parsing and injecting through innerHTML. It depends on the amount of HTML you're inserting and the amount you're deleting. See #Nelson Menezes's comments about innerHTML vs. append.

Depends on the context. If it was only decoration of existing content, then your proposal would suffice. I'd use jQuery anyway, but that's only my preference.
But when injecting the actual content you have two concerns:
maintainability - Make the structure of your code readable and subject to easy change when you need (and you will need).
accessibility - When javascript is disabled, then no content will be visible at all. You should provide a link to desired content in <noscript/> tag or ensure accessibility to everyone any other way you prefer. That's a minority of internet users at the moment, but for professional webmasters they make it count.
To address both of above concerns I prefer to use ajax to load a whole page, some part or even plaintext into existing element. It makes it readable, 'cause the content is sitting in another file completely separated from the script. And since it's a file, you may redirect to it directly when javascript is disabled. It makes the content accessible to anyone.
For plain javascript you'd have to use XMLHttpRequest object, like here.
With jQuery it's even simpler. Depending on what you need you may use .load, .get or .ajax.

Best practice today is using JQuery Manipulation functions.
Most time you'd use one of this 3 functions :
Replace existing HTML node:
$("div").html("New content");
Append a sibling node:
$("div").append("New content");
Remove a node:
$("div").remove();

Display DOM node in multiple places w/o cloning/copying

Disclaimer:
I've blathered on kind-of excessively here in an attempt to provide enough context to pre-empt all questions you folks might have of me. Don't be scared by the length of this question: much of what I've written is very skim-able (especially the potential solutions I've come up with).
Goal:
The effect I'm hoping to achieve is displaying the same element (and all descendants) in multiple places on the same page. My current solution (see below for more detail) involves having to clone/copy and then append in all the other places I want it to appear in the DOM. What I'm asking for here is a better (more efficient) solution. I have a few ideas for potentially more efficient solutions (see below). Please judge/criticize/dismiss/augment those, or add your own more-brilliant-er solution!
"Why?" you ask?
Well, the element (and it's descendants) that I'm wanting to display more than once potentially has lots of attributes and contents - so cloning it, and appending it someplace else (sometimes more than one other place) can get to be quite a resource-hogging DOM manipulation operation.
Some context:
I can't describe the situation exactly (damn NDA's!) but essentially what I've got is a WYSIWYG html document editor. When a person is editing the DOM, I'm actually saving the "original" node and the "changed" node by wrapping them both in a div, hiding the "original" and letting the user modify the new ("changed") node to their heart's content. This way, the user can easily review the changes they've made before saving them.
Before, I'd just been letting the user navigate through the "diff divs" and temporarily unhiding the "original" node, to show the changes "inline". What I'm trying to do now is let the user see the whole "original" document, and their edited ("changed") document in a side-by-side view. And, potentially, I'd like to save the changes through multiple edit sessions, and show 'N' number of versions side-by-side simultaneously.
Current Solution:
My current solution to achieve this effect is the following:
Wrap the whole dang dom (well, except the "toolbars" and stuff that they aren't actually editing) in a div (that I'll call "pane1"), and create a new div (that I'll call "pane2"). Then deep-clone pane1's contents into pane2, and in pane1 only show the "original" nodes, and in pane2 only show the "changed" nodes (in the diff regions - everything outside of that would be displayed/hidden by a toggle switch in a toolbar). Then, repeat this for panes 3-through-N.
Problem with Current Solution:
If the document the user is editing gets super long, or contains pictures/videos (with different src attributes) or contains lots of fancy styling things (columns, tables and the like) then the DOM can potentially get very large/complex, and trying to clone and manipulate it can make the browser slow to a crawl or die (depending on the DOM's size/complexity and how many clones need to be made as well as the efficiency of the browser/the machine it's running on). If size is the issue I can certainly do things like actually remove the hidden nodes from the DOM, but that's yet more DOM manipulation operations hogging resources.
Potential Solutions:
1. Find a way to make the DOM more simple/lightweight
so that the cloning/manipulating that I'm currently doing is more efficient. (of course, I'm trying to do this as much as I can anyway, but perhaps it's all I can really do).
2. Create static representations of the versions with Canvas elements or something.
I've heard there's a trick where you can wrap HTML in an SVG element, then use that as an image source and draw it onto a canvas. I'd think that those static canvasses (canvi?) would have a much smaller memory footprint than cloned DOM nodes. And manipulating the DOM (hiding/showing the appropriate nodes), then drawing an image (rinse & repeat) should be quicker & more efficient than cloning a node and manipulating the clones. (maybe I'm wrong about that? Please tell me!)
I've tried this in a limited capacity, but wrapping my HTML in SVG messes with the way it's rendered in a couple of weird cases - perhaps I just need to message the elements a bit to get them to display properly.
3. Find some magic element
that just refers to another node and looks/acts like it without being a real clone (and therefore being somehow magically much more lightweight). Even if this meant that I couldn't manipulate this magic element separately from the node it's "referencing" (or its fake children) - in that case I could still use this for the unchanged parts, and hopefully shave off some memory usage/DOM Manipulation operations.
4. Perform some of the steps on the server side.
I do have the ability to execute server side code, so maybe it's a lot more efficient (some of my users might be on mobile or old devices) to get all ajax-y and send the relevant part of the DOM (could be the "root" of the document the user is editing, or just particularly heavy "diff divs") to the server to be cloned/manipulated, then request the server-manipulated "clones" and stick 'em in their appropriate panes/places.
5. Fake it to make it "feel" more efficient
Rather than doing these operations all in one go and making the browser wait till the operations are done to re-draw the UI, I could do the operations in "chunks" and let the browser re-render and catch a breather before doing the next chunk. This probably actually would result in more time spent, but to the casual user it might "feel" quicker (haha, silly fools...). In the end, I suppose, it is user experience that is what's most important.
Footnote:
Again, I'm NDA'd which prevents me from posting the actual code here, as much as I'd like to. I think I've thoroughly explained the situation (perhaps too thoroughly - if such a thing exists) so it shouldn't be necessary for you to see code to give me a general answer. If need be, I suppose I could write up some example code that differs enough from my company's IP and post it here. Let me know if you'd like me to do that, and I'll be happy to oblige (well, not really, but I'll do it anyway).

Take a look at CSS background elements. They allow you to display DOM nodes elsewhere/repeatedly. They are of course they are read-only, but should update live.
You may still have to come up with a lot of magic around them, but it is a similar solution to:
Create static representations of the versions with Canvas elements or something.
CSS background elements are also very experimental, so you may not get very far with them if you have to support a range of browsers.

To be honest, after reading the question I almost left thinking it belongs in the "too-hard-basket", but after some thought perhaps I have some ideas.
This is a really difficult problem and the more I think about it the more I realise that there is no real way to escape needing to clone. You're right in that you can create an SVG or Canvas but it won't look the same, though with a fair amount of effort I'm sure you can get quite close but not sure how efficient it will be. You could render the HTML server-side, take a snapshot and send the image to the client but that's definitely not scalable.
The only suggestions I can think of are as follows, sorry if they are long-winded:
How are you doing this clone? If you're going through each element and as you go through each you are creating a clone and copying the attributes one by one then this is heaavvvyy. I would strongly suggest using jQuery clone as my guess is that it's more efficient than your solution. Also, when you are making structural changes it might be useful to take advantage of jQuery's detach/remove (native JS: removeChild()) methods as this will take the element out of the DOM so you can alter it before reinserting.
I'm not sure how you'v got your WYSIWYG, but avoid using inputs as they are heavy. If you must then I'm assuming they don't look like inputs so just swap them out with another element and style (CSS) to match. Make sure you do these swaps before you reinsert the clone in to the DOM.
Don't literally put video at the time of showing the user comparisions. The last thing we want to do is inject 3rd party objects in to the page. Use an image, you only have to do it while comparing. Once again, do the swap before inserting the clone in to the DOM.
I'm assuming the cloned elements won't have javascript attached to them (if there is then remove it, less moving parts is more efficiency). However, the "changed" elements will probably have some JS events attached so perhaps remove them for the period of comparision.
Use Chrome/FF repaint/reflow tools to see how your page is working when you restructure the DOM. This is important because you could be doing some "awesome" animations that are costing you intense resources. See http://paulirish.com/2011/viewing-chromes-paint-cycle/
Use CSS over inline styling where possible as modern browsers are optimised to handle CSS documents
Can you make it so your users use a fast modern browser like Chrome? If it's internal then might be worth it.
Can you do these things in Silverlight or Adobe Air? These objects get special resource privileges, so this will most likely solve your problem (according to what I'm imagining the depth of the problem is)
This one is a bit left-field but could you open in another window? Modern browsers like Chrome will run the other window in its own process which may help.
No doubt you've probably looked in to these things more than I but good luck with it. Would be curious how you solved it.

You may also try: http://html2canvas.hertzen.com/
If it works for you canvas has way better support.

In order to get your "side-by-side" original doc and modified doc.. rather than cloning all pane1 into pane2.. could you just load the original document in an iframe next to the content you are editing? A lot less bulky?
You could tweak how the document is displayed when it's in an iframe (e.g. hide stuff outside editable content).
And maybe when you 'save' a change, write changes to the file (or a temp) and open it up in a new iframe? That might accomplish your "multiple edit sessions"... having multiple iframes displaying the document in various states.
Just thinking out loud...
(Sorry in advance if I'm missing/misunderstanding any of your goals/requirements)

I don't know if it's already the case for you but you should consider using jQuery library as it allows to perform different kinds of DOM elements manipulation such as create content and insert it into several elements at once or select an element on the page and insert it into another.
Have a look on .appendTo(), .html(), .text(), .addClass(), .css(), .attr(), .clone()
http://api.jquery.com/category/manipulation/
Sorry if I'm just pointing out something you already know or even work with but your NDA is in the way of a more accurate answer.

unobtrusive Javascript, should I use it? what is the best way to manage and organize events? how do I prevent inefficiencies?

I have been struggling with choosing unobtrusive javascript over defining it within the html syntax. I want to convince my self to go the unobtrusive route, but I am having trouble getting past the issues listed below. Can you please help convince me :)
1) When you bind events unobtrusively, there is extra overhead on the client's machine to find that html element, where as when you do stuff, you don't have to iterate the DOM.
2) There is a lag between when events are bound using document.ready() (jquery) and when the page loads. This is more apparent on very large sites.
3) If you bind events (onclick etc) unobtrusively, there is no way of looking at the html code and knowing that there is an event bound to a particular class or id. This can become problematic when updating the markup and not realizing that you may be effecting javascript code. Is there a naming convention when defining css elements which are used to bind javascript events (i have seen ppl use js_className)
4) For a site, there are different pieces of javascript for different pages. For example Header.html contains a nav which triggers javascript events on all pages, where as homepage.html and searchPage.html contains elements that trigger javascript on their respective pages
sudo code example:
header.html
<script src="../myJS.js"></script>
<div>Header</div>
<ul>
<li>nav1</li><li>nav2</li>
</ul>
homepage.html
<#include header.html>
<div class="homepageDiv">some stuff</div>
searchpage.html
<#include header.html>
<div class="searchpageDiv">some other stuff</div>
myJS.js
$(document).ready(function(){
$("ul.li").bind("click",doSomething());
$(".homePageDiv").bind("click",doSomethingElse());
$(".searchPageDiv").bind("click",doSomethingSearchy());
});
In this case when you are on the searchPage it will still try to look for the "homepageDiv" which does not exist and fail. This will not effect the functionality but thats an additional unnecessary traversal. I could break this up into seperate javascript files, but then the browser has to download multiple files, and I can't just serve one file and have it cached for all pages.
What is the best way to use unobtrusive javascript so that I could easily maintain a ( pretty script heavy) website, so another developer is aware of scripts being bound to html elements when they are modifying my code. And serve the code so that the client's browser is not looking for elements which do not exist on a particular page (but may exist on others).
Thanks!

You are confused. Unobtrusive JavaScript is not just about defining event handlers in a program. It's a set of rules for writing JavaScript such that the script doesn't affect the functionality of other JavaScript on the same page. JavaScript is a dynamic language. Anyone can make changes to anything. Thus if two separate scripts on the same page both define a global variable add as follows, the last one to define it will win and affect the functionality of the first script.
// script 1
var add = function (a, b) {
return a + b;
};
// script 2
add = 5;
//script 1 again
add(2, 3); // error - add is a number, not a function
Now, to answer your question directly:
The extra overhead to find an element in JavaScript and attach an event listener to it is not a lot. You can use the new DOM method document.querySelector to find an element quickly and attach an event listener to it (it takes less than 1 ms to find the element).
If you want to attach your event listeners quickly, don't do it when your document content loads. Attach your event listeners at the end of the body section or directly after the part of your HTML code to which you wish to attach the event listener.
I don't see how altering the markup could affect the JavaScript in any manner. If you try to attach an event listener to an element that doesn't exist in JavaScript, it will silently fail or throw an exception. Either way, it really won't affect the functionality of the rest of the page. In addition, a HTML designer really doesn't need to know about the events attached any element. HTML is only supposed to be used for semantic markup; CSS is used for styling; and JavaScript is used for behavior. Don't mix up the three.
God has given us free will. Use it. JavaScript supports conditional execution. There are if statements. See if homePageDiv exists and only then attach an event listener to it.
Try:
$(document).ready(function () {
$("ul.li").bind("click",doSomething());
if (document.querySelector(".homePageDiv")) {
$(".homePageDiv").bind("click",doSomethingElse());
} else {
$(".searchPageDiv").bind("click",doSomethingSearchy());
}
});
Your question had very little to do with unobtrusive JavaScript. It showed a lack of research and understanding. Thus, I'm down voting it. Sorry.

Just because jQuery.ready() executes does not mean that the page is visible to the end user. This is a behaviour defined by browsers and these days there are really 2 events to take into consideration here as mootools puts it DomReady vs Load. When jQuery executes the ready method it's talking about the dom loading loaded however this doesn't mean the page is ready to be viewed by the user, external elements which as pictures and even style sheets etc may still be loading.
Any binding you do, even extremely inefficient ones will bind a lot faster than all the external resources being loaded by the browser so IMHO user should experience no difference between the page being displayed and functionality being made available.
As for finding binding on elements in your DOM. You are really just fearing that things will get lost. This has not really been my actual experience, more often than not in your JS you can check what page you are on and only add javascript for that page (as Aadit mentioned above). After that a quick find operation in your editor should help you find anything if stuff gets lost.
Keep in mind that under true MVC the functionality has to be separate from the presentation layer. This is exactly what OO javascript or unobtrusive javascript is about. You should be able to change your DOM without breaking the functionality of the page. Yes, if you change the css class and or element id on which you bind your JS will break, however the user will have no idea of this and the page will at least appear to work. However if this is a big concern you can use OO-Javascript and put div's or span's as placeholders in your dom and use these as markers to insert functionality or tell you that it exists, you can even use html comments. However, in my experience you know the behavior of your site and hence will always know that there is some JS there.
While I understand most of your concerns about useless traversals, I do think you are nickle and dime'ing it at this point if you are worried about 1 additional traversal. Previous to IE8 it used to be the case that traversing with the tag name and id was a lot faster than my selector but this is no longer true infact browsers have evolved to be much faster when using just the selectors:
$("a#myLink") - slowest.
$("a.myLink") - faster.
$("#Link") - fastest.
$(".myLink") - fastest.
In the link below you can see that as many as 34 thousand operations per second are being performed so I doubt speed is an issue.
You can use firebug to test the speed of each in the case of a very large dom.
In Summary:
a) Don't worry about losing js code there is always ctrl+f
b) There is no lag because dom ready does not mean the page is visible to start with.
Update
Fixed order of speed in operations based on the tests results from here
However keep in mind that performances of IE < 8 are really had if you don't specify the container (this used to be the rule, now it seems to be the exception to the rule).

Generating/selecting non-standard HTML tags with jQuery, a good idea?

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.

DOM Insertion: Are some tag types faster when inserting into DOM?

I have a web page that used client side templating to update part of the page based on json obtained via an ajax call.
At the moment I'm using an unordered list where inside each Li I have markup to display information about a product.
I'm interested to know, are some tags faster when inserting into the DOM than others? That is to say should I look to either change my ul into some other tag or maybe change the tags inside the Li s?
thanks
b

The fastest way is to construct HTML as text and set the innerHTML property once.
Another approach is to create a document fragment and once done put it into the DOM.
There might be a difference in the speed of insertion of one tag or another, but it will be marginal and different between browsers.
The thing is that touching the DOM is a very expensive operation - if speed is what you are after - minimize that.
Have a look at Stoyan Stefanov's performance tips.

First off, that is completely dependent on the browser.
That being said, the difference between the rendering time of different tags should be negligible. Use the tag which provides the best semantic meaning. Don't worry about render times of different tags.