Develop Reference

Async loop replaces html/head information after end of first delay [duplicate]

I know document.write is considered bad practice; and I'm hoping to compile a list of reasons to submit to a 3rd party vendor as to why they shouldn't use document.write in implementations of their analytics code.
Please include your reason for claiming document.write as a bad practice below.

A few of the more serious problems:
document.write (henceforth DW) does not work in XHTML
DW does not directly modify the DOM, preventing further manipulation (trying to find evidence of this, but it's at best situational)
DW executed after the page has finished loading will overwrite the page, or write a new page, or not work
DW executes where encountered: it cannot inject at a given node point
DW is effectively writing serialised text which is not the way the DOM works conceptually, and is an easy way to create bugs (.innerHTML has the same problem)
Far better to use the safe and DOM friendly DOM manipulation methods

There's actually nothing wrong with document.write, per se. The problem is that it's really easy to misuse it. Grossly, even.
In terms of vendors supplying analytics code (like Google Analytics) it's actually the easiest way for them to distribute such snippets
It keeps the scripts small
They don't have to worry about overriding already established onload events or including the necessary abstraction to add onload events safely
It's extremely compatible
As long as you don't try to use it after the document has loaded, document.write is not inherently evil, in my humble opinion.

Another legitimate use of document.write comes from the HTML5 Boilerplate index.html example.
<!-- Grab Google CDN's jQuery, with a protocol relative URL; fall back to local if offline -->
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.6.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="js/libs/jquery-1.6.3.min.js"><\/script>')</script>
I've also seen the same technique for using the json2.js JSON parse/stringify polyfill (needed by IE7 and below).
<script>window.JSON || document.write('<script src="json2.js"><\/script>')</script>

It can block your page
document.write only works while the page is loading; If you call it after the page is done loading, it will overwrite the whole page.
This effectively means you have to call it from an inline script block - And that will prevent the browser from processing parts of the page that follow. Scripts and Images will not be downloaded until the writing block is finished.

Pro:
It's the easiest way to embed inline content from an external (to your host/domain) script.
You can overwrite the entire content in a frame/iframe. I used to use this technique a lot for menu/navigation pieces before more modern Ajax techniques were widely available (1998-2002).
Con:
It serializes the rendering engine to pause until said external script is loaded, which could take much longer than an internal script.
It is usually used in such a way that the script is placed within the content, which is considered bad-form.

Here's my twopence worth, in general you shouldn't use document.write for heavy lifting, but there is one instance where it is definitely useful:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/06/three_javascrip_1.html
I discovered this recently trying to create an AJAX slider gallery. I created two nested divs, and applied width/height and overflow: hidden to the outer <div> with JS. This was so that in the event that the browser had JS disabled, the div would float to accommodate the images in the gallery - some nice graceful degradation.
Thing is, as with the article above, this JS hijacking of the CSS didn't kick in until the page had loaded, causing a momentary flash as the div was loaded. So I needed to write a CSS rule, or include a sheet, as the page loaded.
Obviously, this won't work in XHTML, but since XHTML appears to be something of a dead duck (and renders as tag soup in IE) it might be worth re-evaluating your choice of DOCTYPE...

It overwrites content on the page which is the most obvious reason but I wouldn't call it "bad".
It just doesn't have much use unless you're creating an entire document using JavaScript in which case you may start with document.write.
Even so, you aren't really leveraging the DOM when you use document.write--you are just dumping a blob of text into the document so I'd say it's bad form.

It breaks pages using XML rendering (like XHTML pages).
Best: some browser switch back to HTML rendering and everything works fine.
Probable: some browser disable the document.write() function in XML rendering mode.
Worst: some browser will fire an XML error whenever using the document.write() function.

Off the top of my head:
document.write needs to be used in the page load or body load. So if you want to use the script in any other time to update your page content document.write is pretty much useless.
Technically document.write will only update HTML pages not XHTML/XML. IE seems to be pretty forgiving of this fact but other browsers will not be.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#docwrite

Chrome may block document.write that inserts a script in certain cases. When this happens, it will display this warning in the console:
A Parser-blocking, cross-origin script, ..., is invoked via
document.write. This may be blocked by the browser if the device has
poor network connectivity.
References:
This article on developers.google.com goes into more detail.
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104

Browser Violation
.write is considered a browser violation as it halts the parser from rendering the page. The parser receives the message that the document is being modified; hence, it gets blocked until JS has completed its process. Only at this time will the parser resume.
Performance
The biggest consequence of employing such a method is lowered performance. The browser will take longer to load page content. The adverse reaction on load time depends on what is being written to the document. You won't see much of a difference if you are adding a <p> tag to the DOM as opposed to passing an array of 50-some references to JavaScript libraries (something which I have seen in working code and resulted in an 11 second delay - of course, this also depends on your hardware).
All in all, it's best to steer clear of this method if you can help it.
For more info see Intervening against document.write()

I don't think using document.write is a bad practice at all. In simple words it is like a high voltage for inexperienced people. If you use it the wrong way, you get cooked. There are many developers who have used this and other dangerous methods at least once, and they never really dig into their failures. Instead, when something goes wrong, they just bail out, and use something safer. Those are the ones who make such statements about what is considered a "Bad Practice".
It's like formatting a hard drive, when you need to delete only a few files and then saying "formatting drive is a bad practice".

Based on analysis done by Google-Chrome Dev Tools' Lighthouse Audit,
For users on slow connections, external scripts dynamically injected via document.write() can delay page load by tens of seconds.

One can think of document.write() (and .innerHTML) as evaluating a source code string. This can be very handy for many applications. For example if you get HTML code as a string from some source, it is handy to just "evaluate" it.
In the context of Lisp, DOM manipulation would be like manipulating a list structure, e.g. create the list (orange) by doing:
(cons 'orange '())
And document.write() would be like evaluating a string, e.g. create a list by evaluating a source code string like this:
(eval-string "(cons 'orange '())")
Lisp also has the very useful ability to create code using list manipulation (like using the "DOM style" to create a JS parse tree). This means you can build up a list structure using the "DOM style", rather than the "string style", and then run that code, e.g. like this:
(eval '(cons 'orange '()))
If you implement coding tools, like simple live editors, it is very handy to have the ability to quickly evaluate a string, for example using document.write() or .innerHTML. Lisp is ideal in this sense, but you can do very cool stuff also in JS, and many people are doing that, like http://jsbin.com/

A simple reason why document.write is a bad practice is that you cannot come up with a scenario where you cannot find a better alternative.
Another reason is that you are dealing with strings instead of objects (it is very primitive).
It does only append to documents.
It has nothing of the beauty of for instance the MVC (Model-View-Controller) pattern.
It is a lot more powerful to present dynamic content with ajax+jQuery or angularJS.

The disadvantages of document.write mainly depends on these 3 factors:
a) Implementation
The document.write() is mostly used to write content to the screen as soon as that content is needed. This means it happens anywhere, either in a JavaScript file or inside a script tag within an HTML file. With the script tag being placed anywhere within such an HTML file, it is a bad idea to have document.write() statements inside script blocks that are intertwined with HTML inside a web page.
b) Rendering
Well designed code in general will take any dynamically generated content, store it in memory, keep manipulating it as it passes through the code before it finally gets spit out to the screen. So to reiterate the last point in the preceding section, rendering content in-place may render faster than other content that may be relied upon, but it may not be available to the other code that in turn requires the content to be rendered for processing. To solve this dilemma we need to get rid of the document.write() and implement it the right way.
c) Impossible Manipulation
Once it's written it's done and over with. We cannot go back to manipulate it without tapping into the DOM.

I think the biggest problem is that any elements written via document.write are added to the end of the page's elements. That's rarely the desired effect with modern page layouts and AJAX. (you have to keep in mind that the elements in the DOM are temporal, and when the script runs may affect its behavior).
It's much better to set a placeholder element on the page, and then manipulate it's innerHTML.

When I print a message in JavaScript, the button disappears.How do I fix it? [duplicate]

I know document.write is considered bad practice; and I'm hoping to compile a list of reasons to submit to a 3rd party vendor as to why they shouldn't use document.write in implementations of their analytics code.
Please include your reason for claiming document.write as a bad practice below.

A few of the more serious problems:
document.write (henceforth DW) does not work in XHTML
DW does not directly modify the DOM, preventing further manipulation (trying to find evidence of this, but it's at best situational)
DW executed after the page has finished loading will overwrite the page, or write a new page, or not work
DW executes where encountered: it cannot inject at a given node point
DW is effectively writing serialised text which is not the way the DOM works conceptually, and is an easy way to create bugs (.innerHTML has the same problem)
Far better to use the safe and DOM friendly DOM manipulation methods

There's actually nothing wrong with document.write, per se. The problem is that it's really easy to misuse it. Grossly, even.
In terms of vendors supplying analytics code (like Google Analytics) it's actually the easiest way for them to distribute such snippets
It keeps the scripts small
They don't have to worry about overriding already established onload events or including the necessary abstraction to add onload events safely
It's extremely compatible
As long as you don't try to use it after the document has loaded, document.write is not inherently evil, in my humble opinion.

Another legitimate use of document.write comes from the HTML5 Boilerplate index.html example.
<!-- Grab Google CDN's jQuery, with a protocol relative URL; fall back to local if offline -->
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.6.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="js/libs/jquery-1.6.3.min.js"><\/script>')</script>
I've also seen the same technique for using the json2.js JSON parse/stringify polyfill (needed by IE7 and below).
<script>window.JSON || document.write('<script src="json2.js"><\/script>')</script>

It can block your page
document.write only works while the page is loading; If you call it after the page is done loading, it will overwrite the whole page.
This effectively means you have to call it from an inline script block - And that will prevent the browser from processing parts of the page that follow. Scripts and Images will not be downloaded until the writing block is finished.

Pro:
It's the easiest way to embed inline content from an external (to your host/domain) script.
You can overwrite the entire content in a frame/iframe. I used to use this technique a lot for menu/navigation pieces before more modern Ajax techniques were widely available (1998-2002).
Con:
It serializes the rendering engine to pause until said external script is loaded, which could take much longer than an internal script.
It is usually used in such a way that the script is placed within the content, which is considered bad-form.

Here's my twopence worth, in general you shouldn't use document.write for heavy lifting, but there is one instance where it is definitely useful:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/06/three_javascrip_1.html
I discovered this recently trying to create an AJAX slider gallery. I created two nested divs, and applied width/height and overflow: hidden to the outer <div> with JS. This was so that in the event that the browser had JS disabled, the div would float to accommodate the images in the gallery - some nice graceful degradation.
Thing is, as with the article above, this JS hijacking of the CSS didn't kick in until the page had loaded, causing a momentary flash as the div was loaded. So I needed to write a CSS rule, or include a sheet, as the page loaded.
Obviously, this won't work in XHTML, but since XHTML appears to be something of a dead duck (and renders as tag soup in IE) it might be worth re-evaluating your choice of DOCTYPE...

It overwrites content on the page which is the most obvious reason but I wouldn't call it "bad".
It just doesn't have much use unless you're creating an entire document using JavaScript in which case you may start with document.write.
Even so, you aren't really leveraging the DOM when you use document.write--you are just dumping a blob of text into the document so I'd say it's bad form.

It breaks pages using XML rendering (like XHTML pages).
Best: some browser switch back to HTML rendering and everything works fine.
Probable: some browser disable the document.write() function in XML rendering mode.
Worst: some browser will fire an XML error whenever using the document.write() function.

Off the top of my head:
document.write needs to be used in the page load or body load. So if you want to use the script in any other time to update your page content document.write is pretty much useless.
Technically document.write will only update HTML pages not XHTML/XML. IE seems to be pretty forgiving of this fact but other browsers will not be.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#docwrite

Chrome may block document.write that inserts a script in certain cases. When this happens, it will display this warning in the console:
A Parser-blocking, cross-origin script, ..., is invoked via
document.write. This may be blocked by the browser if the device has
poor network connectivity.
References:
This article on developers.google.com goes into more detail.
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104

Browser Violation
.write is considered a browser violation as it halts the parser from rendering the page. The parser receives the message that the document is being modified; hence, it gets blocked until JS has completed its process. Only at this time will the parser resume.
Performance
The biggest consequence of employing such a method is lowered performance. The browser will take longer to load page content. The adverse reaction on load time depends on what is being written to the document. You won't see much of a difference if you are adding a <p> tag to the DOM as opposed to passing an array of 50-some references to JavaScript libraries (something which I have seen in working code and resulted in an 11 second delay - of course, this also depends on your hardware).
All in all, it's best to steer clear of this method if you can help it.
For more info see Intervening against document.write()

I don't think using document.write is a bad practice at all. In simple words it is like a high voltage for inexperienced people. If you use it the wrong way, you get cooked. There are many developers who have used this and other dangerous methods at least once, and they never really dig into their failures. Instead, when something goes wrong, they just bail out, and use something safer. Those are the ones who make such statements about what is considered a "Bad Practice".
It's like formatting a hard drive, when you need to delete only a few files and then saying "formatting drive is a bad practice".

Based on analysis done by Google-Chrome Dev Tools' Lighthouse Audit,
For users on slow connections, external scripts dynamically injected via document.write() can delay page load by tens of seconds.

One can think of document.write() (and .innerHTML) as evaluating a source code string. This can be very handy for many applications. For example if you get HTML code as a string from some source, it is handy to just "evaluate" it.
In the context of Lisp, DOM manipulation would be like manipulating a list structure, e.g. create the list (orange) by doing:
(cons 'orange '())
And document.write() would be like evaluating a string, e.g. create a list by evaluating a source code string like this:
(eval-string "(cons 'orange '())")
Lisp also has the very useful ability to create code using list manipulation (like using the "DOM style" to create a JS parse tree). This means you can build up a list structure using the "DOM style", rather than the "string style", and then run that code, e.g. like this:
(eval '(cons 'orange '()))
If you implement coding tools, like simple live editors, it is very handy to have the ability to quickly evaluate a string, for example using document.write() or .innerHTML. Lisp is ideal in this sense, but you can do very cool stuff also in JS, and many people are doing that, like http://jsbin.com/

A simple reason why document.write is a bad practice is that you cannot come up with a scenario where you cannot find a better alternative.
Another reason is that you are dealing with strings instead of objects (it is very primitive).
It does only append to documents.
It has nothing of the beauty of for instance the MVC (Model-View-Controller) pattern.
It is a lot more powerful to present dynamic content with ajax+jQuery or angularJS.

The disadvantages of document.write mainly depends on these 3 factors:
a) Implementation
The document.write() is mostly used to write content to the screen as soon as that content is needed. This means it happens anywhere, either in a JavaScript file or inside a script tag within an HTML file. With the script tag being placed anywhere within such an HTML file, it is a bad idea to have document.write() statements inside script blocks that are intertwined with HTML inside a web page.
b) Rendering
Well designed code in general will take any dynamically generated content, store it in memory, keep manipulating it as it passes through the code before it finally gets spit out to the screen. So to reiterate the last point in the preceding section, rendering content in-place may render faster than other content that may be relied upon, but it may not be available to the other code that in turn requires the content to be rendered for processing. To solve this dilemma we need to get rid of the document.write() and implement it the right way.
c) Impossible Manipulation
Once it's written it's done and over with. We cannot go back to manipulate it without tapping into the DOM.

I think the biggest problem is that any elements written via document.write are added to the end of the page's elements. That's rarely the desired effect with modern page layouts and AJAX. (you have to keep in mind that the elements in the DOM are temporal, and when the script runs may affect its behavior).
It's much better to set a placeholder element on the page, and then manipulate it's innerHTML.

javascript limit in <head> <script> [duplicate]

I know document.write is considered bad practice; and I'm hoping to compile a list of reasons to submit to a 3rd party vendor as to why they shouldn't use document.write in implementations of their analytics code.
Please include your reason for claiming document.write as a bad practice below.

A few of the more serious problems:
document.write (henceforth DW) does not work in XHTML
DW does not directly modify the DOM, preventing further manipulation (trying to find evidence of this, but it's at best situational)
DW executed after the page has finished loading will overwrite the page, or write a new page, or not work
DW executes where encountered: it cannot inject at a given node point
DW is effectively writing serialised text which is not the way the DOM works conceptually, and is an easy way to create bugs (.innerHTML has the same problem)
Far better to use the safe and DOM friendly DOM manipulation methods

There's actually nothing wrong with document.write, per se. The problem is that it's really easy to misuse it. Grossly, even.
In terms of vendors supplying analytics code (like Google Analytics) it's actually the easiest way for them to distribute such snippets
It keeps the scripts small
They don't have to worry about overriding already established onload events or including the necessary abstraction to add onload events safely
It's extremely compatible
As long as you don't try to use it after the document has loaded, document.write is not inherently evil, in my humble opinion.

Another legitimate use of document.write comes from the HTML5 Boilerplate index.html example.
<!-- Grab Google CDN's jQuery, with a protocol relative URL; fall back to local if offline -->
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.6.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="js/libs/jquery-1.6.3.min.js"><\/script>')</script>
I've also seen the same technique for using the json2.js JSON parse/stringify polyfill (needed by IE7 and below).
<script>window.JSON || document.write('<script src="json2.js"><\/script>')</script>

It can block your page
document.write only works while the page is loading; If you call it after the page is done loading, it will overwrite the whole page.
This effectively means you have to call it from an inline script block - And that will prevent the browser from processing parts of the page that follow. Scripts and Images will not be downloaded until the writing block is finished.

Pro:
It's the easiest way to embed inline content from an external (to your host/domain) script.
You can overwrite the entire content in a frame/iframe. I used to use this technique a lot for menu/navigation pieces before more modern Ajax techniques were widely available (1998-2002).
Con:
It serializes the rendering engine to pause until said external script is loaded, which could take much longer than an internal script.
It is usually used in such a way that the script is placed within the content, which is considered bad-form.

Here's my twopence worth, in general you shouldn't use document.write for heavy lifting, but there is one instance where it is definitely useful:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/06/three_javascrip_1.html
I discovered this recently trying to create an AJAX slider gallery. I created two nested divs, and applied width/height and overflow: hidden to the outer <div> with JS. This was so that in the event that the browser had JS disabled, the div would float to accommodate the images in the gallery - some nice graceful degradation.
Thing is, as with the article above, this JS hijacking of the CSS didn't kick in until the page had loaded, causing a momentary flash as the div was loaded. So I needed to write a CSS rule, or include a sheet, as the page loaded.
Obviously, this won't work in XHTML, but since XHTML appears to be something of a dead duck (and renders as tag soup in IE) it might be worth re-evaluating your choice of DOCTYPE...

It overwrites content on the page which is the most obvious reason but I wouldn't call it "bad".
It just doesn't have much use unless you're creating an entire document using JavaScript in which case you may start with document.write.
Even so, you aren't really leveraging the DOM when you use document.write--you are just dumping a blob of text into the document so I'd say it's bad form.

It breaks pages using XML rendering (like XHTML pages).
Best: some browser switch back to HTML rendering and everything works fine.
Probable: some browser disable the document.write() function in XML rendering mode.
Worst: some browser will fire an XML error whenever using the document.write() function.

Off the top of my head:
document.write needs to be used in the page load or body load. So if you want to use the script in any other time to update your page content document.write is pretty much useless.
Technically document.write will only update HTML pages not XHTML/XML. IE seems to be pretty forgiving of this fact but other browsers will not be.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#docwrite

Chrome may block document.write that inserts a script in certain cases. When this happens, it will display this warning in the console:
A Parser-blocking, cross-origin script, ..., is invoked via
document.write. This may be blocked by the browser if the device has
poor network connectivity.
References:
This article on developers.google.com goes into more detail.
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5718547946799104

Browser Violation
.write is considered a browser violation as it halts the parser from rendering the page. The parser receives the message that the document is being modified; hence, it gets blocked until JS has completed its process. Only at this time will the parser resume.
Performance
The biggest consequence of employing such a method is lowered performance. The browser will take longer to load page content. The adverse reaction on load time depends on what is being written to the document. You won't see much of a difference if you are adding a <p> tag to the DOM as opposed to passing an array of 50-some references to JavaScript libraries (something which I have seen in working code and resulted in an 11 second delay - of course, this also depends on your hardware).
All in all, it's best to steer clear of this method if you can help it.
For more info see Intervening against document.write()

I don't think using document.write is a bad practice at all. In simple words it is like a high voltage for inexperienced people. If you use it the wrong way, you get cooked. There are many developers who have used this and other dangerous methods at least once, and they never really dig into their failures. Instead, when something goes wrong, they just bail out, and use something safer. Those are the ones who make such statements about what is considered a "Bad Practice".
It's like formatting a hard drive, when you need to delete only a few files and then saying "formatting drive is a bad practice".

Based on analysis done by Google-Chrome Dev Tools' Lighthouse Audit,
For users on slow connections, external scripts dynamically injected via document.write() can delay page load by tens of seconds.

One can think of document.write() (and .innerHTML) as evaluating a source code string. This can be very handy for many applications. For example if you get HTML code as a string from some source, it is handy to just "evaluate" it.
In the context of Lisp, DOM manipulation would be like manipulating a list structure, e.g. create the list (orange) by doing:
(cons 'orange '())
And document.write() would be like evaluating a string, e.g. create a list by evaluating a source code string like this:
(eval-string "(cons 'orange '())")
Lisp also has the very useful ability to create code using list manipulation (like using the "DOM style" to create a JS parse tree). This means you can build up a list structure using the "DOM style", rather than the "string style", and then run that code, e.g. like this:
(eval '(cons 'orange '()))
If you implement coding tools, like simple live editors, it is very handy to have the ability to quickly evaluate a string, for example using document.write() or .innerHTML. Lisp is ideal in this sense, but you can do very cool stuff also in JS, and many people are doing that, like http://jsbin.com/

A simple reason why document.write is a bad practice is that you cannot come up with a scenario where you cannot find a better alternative.
Another reason is that you are dealing with strings instead of objects (it is very primitive).
It does only append to documents.
It has nothing of the beauty of for instance the MVC (Model-View-Controller) pattern.
It is a lot more powerful to present dynamic content with ajax+jQuery or angularJS.

The disadvantages of document.write mainly depends on these 3 factors:
a) Implementation
The document.write() is mostly used to write content to the screen as soon as that content is needed. This means it happens anywhere, either in a JavaScript file or inside a script tag within an HTML file. With the script tag being placed anywhere within such an HTML file, it is a bad idea to have document.write() statements inside script blocks that are intertwined with HTML inside a web page.
b) Rendering
Well designed code in general will take any dynamically generated content, store it in memory, keep manipulating it as it passes through the code before it finally gets spit out to the screen. So to reiterate the last point in the preceding section, rendering content in-place may render faster than other content that may be relied upon, but it may not be available to the other code that in turn requires the content to be rendered for processing. To solve this dilemma we need to get rid of the document.write() and implement it the right way.
c) Impossible Manipulation
Once it's written it's done and over with. We cannot go back to manipulate it without tapping into the DOM.

I think the biggest problem is that any elements written via document.write are added to the end of the page's elements. That's rarely the desired effect with modern page layouts and AJAX. (you have to keep in mind that the elements in the DOM are temporal, and when the script runs may affect its behavior).
It's much better to set a placeholder element on the page, and then manipulate it's innerHTML.

jQuery - some beginner questions

I'm a very beginner to jQuery, and I'm having some basic questions:
Is it advisable to use jQuery whenever it is possible to replace something by using it? For example, is it prudent to bind all events to elements using it, instead of through HTML?
Is it better to host the jQuery .js file and all other relevant files (like JQuery UI) myself, or is it perhaps a better choice to use Google's link (they seem to host it for others too)?
When it comes to executing a script when the page is done loading, what way is preferred?
$(document).ready(function() {})
$(function() {})
$().ready(function() {})
They seem to all do the same thing, but what is the preferred way of scripting?

Yes. This way your JS is cleanly separated from your html. You can look at your file and in one glance, see how it is affecting your HTML. If it was embedded in the HTML, you would have to look for onClick, onLoad etc and it can get pretty messy for large applications.
Client browsers will cache files, so if you use the google version of JQuery, it will not have to download it off your server. Saving you bandwidth.
$(document).ready(function() {}) Is the preferred choice. $(function() {}) Just defines the block for execution, it will only execute after the page is ready if it is the last thing on the page to get executed.

1.) Yes and No. It is considered best practice to bind events unobtrusive regardless of using jQuery or not (this means, strictly separate javascript, html and any other language). Since jQuery allows to easily bind events it's a better way to use inline-handlers.
2.) You should use a CDN (like google) to deliver static files like jQuery for Caching purposes + they have a huge server network which may even be faster than your own host.
3.) I would stick to the first two calls. Anyway, basically they all will do it, but the best readability probably has $(document).ready(function() {});

1) Keep all your event binding in your script. This makes it easy to change later. You'll also appreciate having a single place to look for all event-related logic.
2) This has been answered very well already.
3) I prefer #2 for its brevity, but really the ideal way to do it is like this:
jQuery(function($) {
// Your code using failsafe $ alias here...
});
That avoid conflicts if you are using other frameworks that define $.

1: no this is completely up to you. generally jQuery incurs a performance penalty, because it is an extra layer of abstraction. Only use it, if you feel it helps you do your job easier. However, unless you truely need to optimize for performance the benefit in using it will far outway the cost. jQuery gives you tried and tested crossbrowser compatibility, which, if you wish to cater to all the different browsers out there, can be a costly affair to implement yourself.
2: Use Googles version: that way there is a chance that your users already have it cached and don't need to load it again from your site.
3: 2nd option, the shortcut is very widely used to a point where i'd say it's prefered even though 1st option is nice and specific. I'd never use 3rd option

For the 3d point, none of them. it is generally recommended, for performance reasons, to place your scripts just before the closing </body> tag. Thus you will not need to wait for the ready event: at this stage, the page is already loaded.
Check Jquery Cookbox (O'Reilly), Chapter 1.2: Executing jQuery/JavaScript Coded Ater DOM Has Loaded but Before Complete Page Load (that book is a must read all in all)
To have a quick idea about this technique, check Move jQuery to the end of body tag? (there are many other posts on SO about this subject)

I personally don't subscribe to the "cleanly separate JS from HTML" philosophy. I rarely see real world use cases where that has any benefit. Separating HTML from JS often leads to buttons that say "click here to do X" in the HTML but do nothing unless the appropriate javascript is with them. Kind of misses the point.
With the case of jQuery and events... I find it much easier to debug an app if I can inspect an HTML button in firebug and see what that button does (by looking at the onclick attribute).
Using the google version can aid with caching, but don't link directly to jquery.com. We did that here once and they went down, took us with them.

Any difference between lazy loading Javascript files vs. placing just before </body>

Looked around, couldn't find this specific question discussed. Pretty sure the difference is negligible, just curious as to your thoughts.
Scenario: All Javascript that doesn't need to be loaded before page render has been placed just before the closing </body> tag. Are there any benefits or detriments to lazy loading these instead through some Javascript code in the head that executes when the DOM load/ready event is fired? Let's say that this only concerns downloading one entire .js file full of functions and not lazy loading several individual files as needed upon usage.
Hope that's clear, thanks.

There is a big difference, in my opinion.
When you inline the JS at the bottom of the <body> tag, you're forcing the page to load those <script>s synchronously (must happen now) and sequentially (in a row), so you're slowing down the page a bit, as you must wait for those HTTP calls to finish and the JS engine to interpret your scripts. If you're putting lots of JS stacked up together at the bottom of the page, you could be wasting the user's time with network queueing (in older browsers only 2 connections per host at a time), as the scripts may depend on each other, so they must be downloaded in order.
If you want your DOM to be ready faster (usually what most wait on to do any event handling and animation), you must reduce the size of the scripts you need to as little as possible as well as parallelize them.
For instance, YUI3 has a small dependency resolution and downloading script that you must load sequentially in the page (see YUI3's seed.js). After that, you go through the page and gather the dependencies and make 1 asynchronous and pipelined call to their CDN (or your own servers) to get a big ball of JS. After the JS ball is returned, your scripts execute the callbacks you've supplied. Here's the general pattern:
<script src="seed.js"></script>
<script>
YUI().use('module', function(Y) {
// done when the ball returns and is interpretted
});
</script>
I'm not a particularly big fan of putting your scripts into 1 big ball (because if 1 dependency changes, you must download and interpret the whole thing over again!), but I am a fan of pipe-lining (combining scripts) and the event-based model.
When you do allow for asynchronous, event-based loading, you get better performance, but perhaps not perceived performance (though this can be counteracted).
For instance, parts of the page may not load for a second or two, and hence look different (if you're using JS to affect the page style, which I don't advise) or not be ready for user interaction until you (or those hosting your site) return your scripts.
Additionally, you must do some work to ensure your <script>s have the right dependencies to be able to execute properly. For instance, if you don't have jQuery or Prototype, you can't successfully call:
<script>
$(function () {
/* do something */
});
</script>
or
<script>
document.observe('dom:loaded', function {
/* do something */
});
</script>
as the interpretter will say something like "Variable $ undefined". This can happen even if you've added both <script>s to the DOM at the same time, as I'd bet jQuery or Prototype are bigger than you're application's JS (so the request for the data takes longer). Either way, without some type of limiting, you're leaving this up to chance.
So, the choice is really up to you. If you can properly segment your dependencies - i.e. put the stuff you need up front and lazily load the other stuff later, it'll result in faster overall time until you hit the DOM being ready.
However, if you use a monolithic library like jQuery or the user expects to be able to see something involving JS animation or style right away, inlining might be better for you.

In terms of Usability, you definitely shouldn't do this with anything that the user expects a quick response from like having a button do double duty as the load trigger in addition to it's other function.
OTOH replacing pagination with continuously loading the page as the user scrolls is a very good idea. I do find it a distraction when the load trigger is towards the end of the page, better to put it 1/2 to 3/4 the way down.