jonas at sicking.cc
Sun Sep 20 17:58:23 PDT 2009
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Michael A. Puls II
<shadow2531 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:15:11 -0400, Joseph Pecoraro <joepeck02 at gmail.com>
>> On Sep 20, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>>> I think it'd be cool to have to complement document.documentElement and
>> On Sep 20, 2009, at 4: 00PM, Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
>>> Surely better than abominable –
>>> `document.getElementsByTagName('head')` :)
>> I agree. Unfortunately that is the most popular method I've seen. There
>> are better solutions, but they haven't caught on. I think a smarter idea
>> would be to look at the children of the <html> element. Something like this
>> almost always works:
>> var head = document.documentElement.firstChild
> It wasn't very long ago though that in Opera for example, head wasn't
> guaranteed to be the first child of the documentElement. But, that'll work
> now and is pretty good.
> Yet, I still like document.head as it's shorter and it's more direct about
> what you're doing.
> I think I remember someone saying that Netscape (the somewhat recent, not
> too old versions) had support for document.head, for a little while at
> least. And, in HTML, head is pretty important.
Yup, another aspect is that I think we can promote correct usage of
HTML by making it as easy to put stuff into <head> as into <body> when
using the DOM.
More information about the whatwg