At 05.42 20/12/02 -0800, you wrote: >On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +0000, Roger Hayter wrote: >> The last thing we want is=20 >> the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript= >=20 >> tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which applies the more so when= >=20 >> javascript is disabled. > >The only Javascript functionality we are considering using is to make a=20 >window pop-up which is roughly the same appearance and dimensions as a=20 >normal download window. This is a very basic usage of Javascript which=20 >has been supported by all browsers for donkeys-years. If a browser=20 >doesn't support JS, or if JS has been disabled, then it will work just=20 >fine, except that the download window will appear in the browser rather=20 >than in a separate Window. > >If you can explain, specifically, why this is bad, then we won't do it.
Just to be coherent; we roughtly say "Active contents are Evil" to Joe users that don't care so much, so I think it is better not to use it in the Freenet interface. "Active contents are evil except mine" sounds odd .... FWIW. Marco _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
