<p>I'm torn on this. On the one hand creating and hooking a function to invoke another function to include a file that is 1 line long just feels wrong. It's like the US spending a million dollars to make a pen that writes in space when the Russians just used pencils. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the enqueue system is great and exists for a reason (plus it keeps code neater for ocd people). And one more enqueue isn't going to be a perceptable difference in processing time in 99% of scenarios.</p>
<p>On the third hand, why allow users to print "raw" css for custom headers and backgrounds when this could also be wholly accomplished by enqueuing a bootstrapped php file with CSS headers as a style sheet? What's good for the goose, etc. </p>
<p>While performance differences are trivial, they are real, and unless there's a compelling reason for not allowing people to include one line scripts directly or by hooking and anonymous function that echos the script (is that any better?), I think it should be up to the theme author.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 16, 2012 12:49 PM, "Otto" <<a href="mailto:otto@ottodestruct.com">otto@ottodestruct.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Chip Bennett <<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net">chip@chipbennett.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> Is there any particular reason that such a script can't be enqueued like<br>
> most other scripts, that would warrant such an exception?<br>
<br>
No, but I would still advocate allowing it for small scripts. Define<br>
"small scripts" arbitrarily. Say, less than 8 lines.<br>
<br>
The biggest reason to allow it is simply one of speed. Enqueuing<br>
forces you to have the script in a separate file, and adds the<br>
overhead of an extra HTTP request for the most common cases. For a<br>
single line of JS, this is a lot of unnecessary extra overhead.<br>
Especially when the script has no dependencies and is simply a shiv to<br>
do one particular thing. In this case, he's wanting to change no-js<br>
classes to js classes, via js, which makes sense for allowing pure CSS<br>
to handle the no-js case gracefully.<br>
<br>
The thinking is along the same lines as the "data URI" scheme, where<br>
you can include binary data like images inline to CSS or HTML as<br>
base64 text. For small files, the setup and teardown and data transfer<br>
overhead of an HTTP connection is quite a bit slower than simply<br>
always serving the file. You lose caching benefits in some cases, but<br>
at a certain point of smallness, it's worth that minor overhead to<br>
eliminate a larger overhead.<br>
<br>
-Otto<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
</blockquote></div>