Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Alternative Method To Include Js Files

This question is a follow up question for this question. If some browsers download JS files even though the user has JS disabled, would it make sense to include JS files using JS t

Solution 1:

I'm going to step back to this question:

Does this even matter? Is it worth being concerned over?

No, it's not :) The percentage of users who have JavaScript disabled should be very much the minority (in the majority of cases), it's really not worth it to mess with the loading of all users to save a few HTTP requests (which should be cached) for a few, stay with <script> tags.

Also, look at the accepted answer in the previous question, in the initial testing 3/4 browsers don't download it already, so really this is only for Chrome (and possibly IE), the other browsers already save the requests here.

Update: I just tested in IE8, it does not download any included JavaScript when it's disabled, I'm not setup to test any other versions at the moment, but this is true in IE8 at least.

Post a Comment for "Alternative Method To Include Js Files"