I’m displaying a bar code on a web page and wondering if there is any disadvantage using JavaScript to do it rather than an image or pdf in terms of caching?
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I’m displaying a bar code on a web page and wondering if there is any disadvantage using JavaScript to do it rather than an image or pdf in terms of caching?
Javascript can be cached if it’s in an external file, so go for it. Recognise however, that some browsers have Javascript disabled, it’s probably more % of users than you would think with the popularity of plugins such as NoScript.
The advantage of an image is it will work on far far more browsers (100%). It can also be saved, if this is something visitors might do. Saving the output of a JS file is a little trickier for end users.
So I would favour an image, unless you are generating hundreds of new barcodes and have a solution in JS that makes that job a lot easier.
Cliffnotes: It depends on your situation. But hopefully I’ve outlined the most important pros/cons.