Actually I agree with that somewhat. Having both client side and server side checks has it's purpose. It saves a trip to the server for those that have not disabled JavaScript.
-----Original Message----- From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 August 2005 01:34 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: XML format for menus > And why NS4 and not NS3, 2, 1? > After all, you don't support CP/M, do you? Because still see a significant enough amount of traffic with NS4 to justify making our sites at least functional with the browser, even if they're not as attractive overall as with a newer one. Not the case for older versions. Hell, we just had one of our clients switch from NS4 to IE6 across their entire corporate network this year. Yes, they were using NS4 corporate-wide as recently as 4 months ago. It's definitely not dead. > >>I absolutely agree this would be desirable, but it doesn't handle > >>security properly (you don't want to do security client-side, so you > >>need an abstract representation on teh server anyway) > > I do this with CF, intranet users never see options they are not > allowed to, and even if they know the url and call it directly, they will be kicked off. > CF is perfectly capable of handling this. So you render your HTML with everything, and then apply security considerations with Javascript? Not that it's not viable, but seems kind of silly. Why build all that machinery twice, since you have to have it on the CF side regardless? I suppose it doesn't really matter at all, each will do it his own way. cheers, barneyb On 7/31/05, Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>If you can show me how to take a bunch of markup and convert it > into a > > >>JS menu that'll work on NS4+, IE4+, Gecko and Safari without it > >>being messy, I'll be very impressed. To this point, I've utterly failed. > > I agree with you about IE4 and NS4, although I didn't even try to make > it compatible with them. > However, I suspect these are only used by a couple of extremists just > to check if your site supports them and complain if it doesn't. > And why NS4 and not NS3, 2, 1? > After all, you don't support CP/M, do you? > > >>I absolutely agree this would be desirable, but it doesn't handle > >>security properly (you don't want to do security client-side, so you > >>need an abstract representation on teh server anyway) > > I do this with CF, intranet users never see options they are not > allowed to, and even if they know the url and call it directly, they will be kicked off. > CF is perfectly capable of handling this. > -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 50 invites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:213368 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
