On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 10:01:45AM -0500, Wayne Scott wrote: > > Please explain, specifically, the bad thing that will happen if we use > > Javascript in the manner I describe. If you can explain what this bad > > thing is, then we won't use Javascript. Vague "Javascript is evil" > > responses don't count. > How about this one: > If effect Freenet says this: > Javascript downloaded from freenet is dangerous and we can't really > protect you from it so you should really disable Javascript in your > browser when browsing Freenet. > You want to add this: > Most people ignore our advice so, for the best experience enable > Javascript when running Freenet. But don't worry it is completely > optional. > > It is pretty inconsistent.
Firstly, that is exactly the vague "Javascript is evil" type of response I predicted. Secondly, the words you are putting into my mouth are spinned to death to support your argument, a more accurate description of my proposal would be: "Most people decide to take the informed risk of allowing Javascript and trusting the FProxy filter. Javascript allows us to make the user interface better than we otherwise could, so lets take advantage of it when its available, provided that this doesn't deminish the user experience when it isn't". Again, I ask a simple question: What is the specific bad thing that will happen if we do this? It is a perfectly reasonable question, and one nobody seems capable of giving a straight answer to, rather people are making vague references to what we are "saying" by taking advantage of Javascript when it is available. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com] Latest Project http://cematics.com/kanzi Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021220/0eca43a5/attachment.pgp>
