| von c3o |
For
* Convenient and fast.
* Easy to use and understand.
* Works in general situations where some factors are unknown.
* Great for writing data to a node, This could take along time with the DOM.
* In situations where you need innerHTML, nothing else will do
* innerHTML is significantly faster than the DOM in Gecko and IE
Against
* It is NOT a W3C DOM standard. It won't likely become one either.
* The DOM is more powerful.
* Its name contains HTML, although it could be used for SGML/XML documents.
* It is lazy and can produce unstructured, lazy code.
* It can lead new developers away from learning about text nodes.
* Code will become hard to port to XML apps and won't be future proof.
* Should the browser be parsing HTML strings and creating nodes?!
* innerHTML can mean structural data inside the behavioural element of your app.
( http://www.developer-x.com/content/innerhtml/ )
|
| von Efchen |
| Und warum muss ich was benutzen, was nicht Standard ist? Was innerHTML macht, kann ich doch genauso mit dem DOM-Standard Nodes machen. Oder etwa nicht? Also weg mit innerHTML. |
| von Can |
Now am I flat! Wieso sagt mir das denn keiner *heul*
Dachte, das sei so ne IE-only-Eigenschaft... |
| von c3o |
innerHTML können alle aktuellen Browser, nicht nur der IE.
Es ist kein Standard, aber in vielen Fällen trotzdem die beste Lösung. |
| von Can |
Ok, habs geschafft:
1:
2: | child=document.getElementsByName("div1")[0];
document.getElementsByName("div1")[0].parentNode.removeChild(child); |
Can |
|
