Remove element by id

Question

When removing an element with standard JavaScript, you must go to its parent first:

var element = document.getElementById("element-id");
element.parentNode.removeChild(element);

Having to go to the parent node first seems a bit odd to me, is there a reason JavaScript works like this?

Answer 1

I know that augmenting native DOM functions isn't always the best or most popular solution, but this works fine for modern browsers.

Element.prototype.remove = function() {
    this.parentElement.removeChild(this);
}
NodeList.prototype.remove = HTMLCollection.prototype.remove = function() {
    for(var i = this.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
        if(this[i] && this[i].parentElement) {
            this[i].parentElement.removeChild(this[i]);
        }
    }
}

And then you can remove elements like this

document.getElementById("my-element").remove();

or

document.getElementsByClassName("my-elements").remove();

Note: this solution doesn't work for IE 7 and below. For more info about extending the DOM read this article.

EDIT: Reviewing my answer in 2019, node.remove() has come to the rescue and can be used as follows (without the polyfill above):

document.getElementById("my-element").remove();

or

[...document.getElementsByClassName("my-elements")].map(n => n && n.remove());

These functions are available in all modern browsers (not IE). Read more on MDN.

Answer 2

Crossbrowser and IE >= 11:

document.getElementById("element-id").outerHTML = "";

Answer 3

You could make a remove function so that you wouldn't have to think about it every time:

function removeElement(id) {
    var elem = document.getElementById(id);
    return elem.parentNode.removeChild(elem);
}

Answer 4

Update 2011

This was added to the DOM spec back in 2011, so you can just use:

element.remove()

The DOM is organized in a tree of nodes, where each node has a value, along with a list of references to its child nodes. So element.parentNode.removeChild(element) mimics exactly what is happening internally: First you go the parent node, then remove the reference to the child node.

As of DOM4, a helper function is provided to do the same thing: element.remove(). This works in 96% of browsers (as of 2020), but not IE 11.

If you need to support older browsers, you can:

• Remove elements via the parent node
• Modify the native DOM functions, as in Johan Dettmar's answer, or
• Use a DOM4 polyfill.

Answer 5

It's what the DOM supports. Search that page for "remove" or "delete" and removeChild is the only one that removes a node.

Answer 6

For removing one element:

 var elem = document.getElementById("yourid");
 elem.parentElement.removeChild(elem);

For removing all the elements with for example a certain class name:

 var list = document.getElementsByClassName("yourclassname");
 for(var i = list.length - 1; 0 <= i; i--)
 if(list[i] && list[i].parentElement)
 list[i].parentElement.removeChild(list[i]);

Answer 7

you can just use element.remove()

Answer 8

You can directly remove that element by using remove() method of DOM.

here's an example:

let subsWrapper = document.getElementById("element_id");
subsWrapper.remove();
//OR directly.
document.getElementById("element_id").remove();

Answer 9

The ChildNode.remove() method removes the object from the tree it belongs to.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/ChildNode/remove

Here is a fiddle that shows how you can call document.getElementById('my-id').remove()

https://jsfiddle.net/52kp584L/

**

There is no need to extend NodeList. It has been implemented already.

**

Answer 10

According to DOM level 4 specs, which is the current version in development, there are some new handy mutation methods available: append(), prepend(), before(), after(), replace(), and remove().

https://catalin.red/removing-an-element-with-plain-javascript-remove-method/

Answer 11

You can simply use

document.getElementById("elementID").outerHTML="";

It works in all browsers, even on Internet Explorer.

Answer 12

Having to go to the parent node first seems a bit odd to me, is there a reason JavaScript works like this?

The function name is removeChild(), and how is it possible to remove the child when there's no parent? :)

On the other hand, you do not always have to call it as you have shown. element.parentNode is only a helper to get the parent node of the given node. If you already know the parent node, you can just use it like this:

Ex:

// Removing a specified element when knowing its parent node
var d = document.getElementById("top");
var d_nested = document.getElementById("nested");
var throwawayNode = d.removeChild(d_nested);

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Node/removeChild

=========================================================

To add something more:

Some answers have pointed out that instead of using parentNode.removeChild(child);, you can use elem.remove();. But as I have noticed, there is a difference between the two functions, and it's not mentioned in those answers.

If you use removeChild(), it will return a reference to the removed node.

var removedChild = element.parentNode.removeChild(element); 
console.log(removedChild); //will print the removed child.

But if you use elem.remove();, it won't return you the reference.

var el = document.getElementById('Example');
var removedChild = el.remove(); //undefined

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/ChildNode/remove

This behavior can be observed in Chrome and FF. I believe It's worth noticing :)

Hope my answer adds some value to the question and will be helpful!!

Answer 13

Functions that use ele.parentNode.removeChild(ele) won't work for elements you've created but not yet inserted into the HTML. Libraries like jQuery and Prototype wisely use a method like the following to evade that limitation.

_limbo = document.createElement('div');
function deleteElement(ele){
    _limbo.appendChild(ele);
    _limbo.removeChild(ele);
}

I think JavaScript works like that because the DOM's original designers held parent/child and previous/next navigation as a higher priority than the DHTML modifications that are so popular today. Being able to read from one <input type='text'> and write to another by relative location in the DOM was useful in the mid-90s, a time when the dynamic generation of entire HTML forms or interactive GUI elements was barely a twinkle in some developer's eye.

Answer 14

Shortest

I improve Sai Sunder answer because OP uses ID which allows to avoid getElementById:

elementId.remove();

box2.remove();          // remove BOX 2

this["box-3"].remove(); // remove BOX 3 (for Id with 'minus' character)

<div id="box1">My BOX 1</div>
<div id="box2">My BOX 2</div>
<div id="box-3">My BOX 3</div>
<div id="box4">My BOX 4</div>

Answer 15

Having to go to the parent node first seems a bit odd to me, is there a reason JavaScript works like this?

IMHO: The reason for this is the same as I've seen in other environments: You are performing an action based on your "link" to something. You can't delete it while you're linked to it.

Like cutting a tree limb. Sit on the side closest to the tree while cutting or the result will be ... unfortunate (although funny).

Answer 16

From what I understand, removing a node directly does not work in Firefox, only Internet Explorer. So, to support Firefox, you have to go up to the parent to remove it's child.

Ref: http://chiragrdarji.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/removedelete-element-from-page-using-javascript-working-in-firefoxieopera/

Answer 17

This one actually comes from Firefox... for once, IE was ahead of the pack and allowed the removal of an element directly.

This is just my assumption, but I believe the reason that you must remove a child through the parent is due to an issue with the way Firefox handled the reference.

If you call an object to commit hari-kari directly, then immediately after it dies, you are still holding that reference to it. This has the potential to create several nasty bugs... such as failing to remove it, removing it but keeping references to it that appear valid, or simply a memory leak.

I believe that when they realized the issue, the workaround was to remove an element through its parent because when the element is gone, you are now simply holding a reference to the parent. This would stop all that unpleasantness, and (if closing down a tree node by node, for example) would 'zip-up' rather nicely.

It should be an easily fixable bug, but as with many other things in web programming, the release was probably rushed, leading to this... and by the time the next version came around, enough people were using it that changing this would lead to breaking a bunch of code.

Again, all of this is simply my guesswork.

I do, however, look forward to the day when web programming finally gets a full spring cleaning, all these strange little idiosyncracies get cleaned up, and everyone starts playing by the same rules.

Probably the day after my robot servant sues me for back wages.

Answer 18

// http://javascript.crockford.com/memory/leak.html
// cleans dom element to prevent memory leaks
function domPurge(d) {
    var a = d.attributes, i, l, n;
    if (a) {
        for (i = a.length - 1; i >= 0; i -= 1) {
            n = a[i].name;
            if (typeof d[n] === 'function') {
                d[n] = null;
            }
        }
    }
    a = d.childNodes;
    if (a) {
        l = a.length;
        for (i = 0; i < l; i += 1) {
            domPurge(d.childNodes[i]);
       }
    }
}

function domRemove(id) {
    var elem = document.getElementById(id);
    domPurge(elem);
    return elem.parentNode.removeChild(elem);
}

Answer 19

This is the best function to remove an element without script error:

function Remove(EId)
{
    return(EObj=document.getElementById(EId))?EObj.parentNode.removeChild(EObj):false;
}

Note to EObj=document.getElementById(EId).

This is ONE equal sign not ==.

if element EId exists then the function removes it, otherwise it returns false, not error.