On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Volodya <Volodya at whengendarmesleeps.org>wrote:
> > Why must we inconvenience 99% >> > of our users to accomodate the irrational 1%? >> >> Okay, since you asked, the main cases I can see where you'd want to >> turn off >> javascript: >> 1. Users with low end computers. People in hostile regimes will often >> have >> low end computers. >> >> >> If they are capable of running Freenet with its current resource >> requirements >> then they are capable of using a browser that supports Javascript. >> > > If that would be true (which it isn't), then by the same logic if a person > is capable of running Freenet then that individual is capable of using a > browser with no Javascript. > Yes, they are *capable* of using a browser with no Javascript, but they are not forced to. > P.S. Why is this still being discussed? Isn't it clear that the only way to > make peace between two camps is *js with fallback*? Because *js with fallback* is probably twice as much work. If those that care so much about supporting non-JS browsers are willing to build a non-JS version of the UI, or maintain the existing one, then problem solved. I get the impression though that they'd rather just throw in their opinions without offering to help deal with the consequences of doing what they advocate. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101018/f0f3b639/attachment.html>
