I have read all the reason why DOM purists don't like document.write
and innerHTML. I would like to be a good programmer and do the right
thing and not use them. But I need your help to get it to what the
project needs done.

In the interest of brevity, the following code has been simplified.
You'll notice sDoc contains HTML and JavaScript, this is a
unchangeable requirement. PLEASE don't waste your time or mine by
explaining how un-couth it is. I know it is but there's nothing I can
do about. Answers strictly focused what can be done versus what should
be done will be greatly appreciated.

There are three attempted methods to render the sDoc. The first one is
to create a textNode and append it to a div. It prints the code as
text instead of rendering it, as expected. Is it possible to get it to
render?

The second method uses innerHTML and the HTML is rendered but not the
JavasScript.

The third method uses document.write which renders both the HTML and
JavaScript, but we really really don't want to use the write method,
but at this point it looks like we have no choice.

We've even tried to render sDoc in a DOM created iFrame, but it chokes
in Mozilla browsers because of the known bug of included scripts that
use document.write (once again another requirement that can't be
changed) kills the page as document.close fails.

<div id="foo1" style="border:1px solid black;"></div>
<div id="foo2" style="border:1px solid black;"></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var sDoc = '<center><scr'+'ipt
language=javascript>alert(true);</scr'+'ipt></center>';
var myText = document.createTextNode(sDoc);
document.getElementById("foo1").appendChild(myText);
document.getElementById("foo2").innerHTML = sDoc;
document.write(sDoc);
</script>

P.S. If it was a polemic post to state your own position on the topic
then you could at least choose something lesser bizarre than

Let me make the question very simple: YES or NO can DOM accomplish
what write accomplishes with the string of HTML and JavaScript AS IT
IS!?!

I've got $20 dollars riding on an office bet this very simple question
won't get answered with a simple "no it can't be done" or "yes, even
with that mangled string you can GET IT TO WORK, if you did this..."

As far as I know, the only appropriate way to write a string to a
document via DOM methodology is to create a text node
(document.createTextNode(string)) and append it to an existing node.
createTextNode resolves HTML entities, so your '<script>' ends up as
'&lt;script&gt;'.

I would have thought that innerHTML might work, but I have not tested
it and it sounds like it doesn't according to your description. There
are of course other methods, but as these are not options for you, then
NO is the answer as far as I know.

On Nov 2, 10:33 am, Me <m...@me.com> wrote:

As I don't like to loose I have a contre bet to you:
I have $40 to pay if you pass your right hand behind your head and you
scratch by this hand your right ear. Send a photo with the address for
the money transfer to my e-mail.

Mozilla and Opera don't execute script when you set innerHTML I think
but they do if you insert a script element with the W3C DOM (e.g.
appendChild, insertBefore, replaceChild) into the document.

So with innerHTML you can serve IE and Mozilla and Opera if you have a
container element, clone that, set innerHTML on that clone before it is
inserted in the document, then finally replace the original container
element with the clone (e.g. element.parentNode.replaceChild(clone,
element)). And the script element for IE needs the defer attribute.

This test case
<http://home.arcor.de/martin.honnen/javascript/2006/11/test2006110201....>
works for me on Windows XP with Opera 8.5, 9.0, Firefox 2.0, SeaMonkey
1.0, and IE 6 where "works" means that both inserted scripts are
executed, the alert directly when the insert operation happens, the
function test is parsed and available as clicking the text executes the
function correctly and inserts the date/time when clicked.

But there are other browsers (e.g. Safari, Konqueror) that might need
other attempts so generally inserting script with innerHTML is not reliable.

--

Even if it is about EOLAS you do it in an overly hard way. There are
much nicer and still DOM-compliant workarounds. But as I'm still
running for my $20 :-) here is the solition exactly as spelled:

<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
 content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>

<body>

<div id="screwThem"></div>

<script type="text/javascript">
/* anti-EOLAS usage welcome */
/* any other usage is prohibited */
var out = document.getElementById('screwThem');
if (out) {
 var HTMLFragment = document.createElement('div');
  HTMLFragment.id = 'dyn001';
  HTMLFragment.innerHTML = '<b>Bold text</b>';
  HTMLFragment.style.border = 'thin solid black';
  out.appendChild(HTMLFragment);
 var JSBlock = document.createElement('script');
  JSBlock.type = 'text/javascript';
  JSBlock.text = 'window.alert("Hi!");';
  out.appendChild(JSBlock);

<div>The rest of page</div>

secondly it is not copyrighted, use this however you want, but anything
except EOLAS would be programming logic (and the conventional logic)
abuse so I would be upset seeing my code used for just dynamic page
updates. this is what I wanted to say by my notice. There is not (c)
sign in there.

forthly I just checked the entire archives and createJSFile you
suggested to look for in another thread exists only in one post: namely
in your own one where you are suggesting to look for it.

You must be confused with numerous dynamic *external* script topics
discussed here in another NG.

For the *inline* scripts the solution did not exist because everyone
was trying to use the road over createTextNode method and it doesn't
work for IE (though seems to work for Firefox).

scriptObject.text = "sctring to execute" works universally on all UA's
anyone should be bothered about and I've found it in lesser than in 4
min.

That is again *not* about copyrights of any kind, feel free to use; but
as myself I'm a very cautious man in (c) issues I would like to
eliminate any misunderstanding on the matter.

Your code below doesn't work with my Safari :-(
(it doesn't more with my IE Mac but I knew it)
Doesn't work with iCab :-(

Alone FF and Opera can understand it.

I'd like to buy all of you beer, but big thanks to Martin for coming
up with killer workaround code. I'll tinker with it now and post a
message if I have a question.

Safari _2.x_ did a big step forward from a beautiful yet useless
application canvas to a real web-browser. Still long way to go, but at
least this baby does seem totally hopeless as it did before. We'll see
the development. For the time being for a serious browsing on modern
Mac's Camino <http://www.caminobrowser.org> remains the preferred
choice ("at least Mac OS X 10.2" is not too much to ask IMHO at the end
of the year 2006).

<URL:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_threa...>

In fact, that is the first thread in the search of the archives for
loadJSFile.

Where I modified the loadJSFile function to set the .text property.
Setting the .text property of a script element is old news VK.

I can only name the UA's considered monetary important to check
against: by myself and by the small outsourced company I'm running.
These are:
 IE 6.0 SP1
 IE 7.0
 Firefox 1.5
 Camino 1.0.3
+ UA's used by CEO and CFO of the company placing the order (if not in
the list).
The latter is the most important one after IE 6.0, I'm always trying to
find a reason (portfolio demonstration is a good one) to check if there
is something "conceptual" in there.

There are also "sport vehicle" UA's, it means I bother to look at them
if I have some free time and nothing better to do. These are:
 Opera 9.02
 Netscape 8.1.2 (majorly for nostalgic issues, so besides free time it
has to be a rainy day and a bad mood).

Comprehensive list? Any browser/UA that will support what you are trying
to do. And you determine that list via object detection and you don't
care what the browser/UA is.