Good. Evil. Bratwurst.

Interesting Quirk

Posted on by arlen

Just ran into an interesting quirk with Inman positioning.

I was using it with Safari 3, and noticed the same bug in Firefox while testing. I loaded the javascript file in the document head and when the document started to load,, apparently it loaded a document and triggered the script before the body had loaded. The script failed, claiming document.body was null.

After ripping out handfuls of hair (“Whaddya mean null? I can see the tag right there! Open your eyes you stupid machine!”) I realized the timing issue and moved the script deeper into the document, so it would be triggered after the body tag was loaded.


6 Responses to Interesting Quirk

  1. Hmmm, my reading of this makes me think you had

    document.body.innerHTML = “blarghy”; // or whatever

    In which case firefox and safari are both correct. A script element with a src attribute basically inlines the src in the document, producing:

    document.body.innerHTML = “blarghy”; // or whatever

    Which is spec’d to execute the JS at parse time — eg. before the head has been closed, or the body element started/created. A much more sane/correct approach is to have such logic registered as an onload handler for the body.

  2. *sigh* it would appear wordpress decided to just clear any and all html content rather than escaping it, or providing a preview.

  3. Probably my settings are doing it. I’m tired of this site getting targeted by folks wanting to play spam games, so I tightened down the hatches a bit more, perhaps, than necessary. But considering how much time I’ve spent lately cleaning out pollution from some West African incursions, I think the question is not whether I’m paranoid, but whether I’m paranoid enough.

    There are limited HTML tags available in the comments, but I don’t have anything set up to auto-escape the code. If posting code here becomes more popular, I’ll do something about it.

    To the point: Yes, I think you’re right; registering it as an onload() handler is more correct. In my defense, the task at hand was the first build of a new design, and I was just trying to stack the blocks and go, leaving the mortar and trim until I had a basic design structure I liked. So I popped the IP js into the CMS, told it where to include the file, and moved on.

    What made this a bit more complicated was I had been working with a Beta of Safari 3 for a while, and a couple of the beta builds calculated the height of the boxes incorrectly (in javascript, on the browser display they were the right size — CSS took the font size down to 85% but JS calculated the box height as if the font were 100%) thus making a complete mockery of the positioning code. I spent some time at the beginning of this trying to prove/disprove I was seeing a recurrence of this beta bug in 3.0.4. So I let myself get caught up in debugging both the browser and the javascript, and wasn’t thinking in production terms.

    I think the most proper approach from me would have been to ignore the problem as it presented itself, and just kept stacking blocks until there was something worth making a decision about, and only then gone back to fix the code. But I love debugging, and sometimes the temptation is too much to resist.

  4. Not a bug, in this case. It’s allowed behavior to load a script before the body element is complete. I believe I did file the bug under the beta version when I discovered it. (Incidentally, it is fixed. I confirmed that when I first thought it had returned.)

  5. Pingback: Theodicius » Bughunting Safari 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

January 2008
« Dec   Feb »