On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: >> >> true enough - it's just been a question of effort. We keep the JS to a >> minimum (even moreso because it's tedious to add ;). >> > > Perhaps it is good that it is tedious to add/edit the JS? >
One can certainly argue that fossil's core features shouldn't rely on it, but i think web users as a whole have become spoiled by interactive pages a bit, and probably see fossil as a bit outdated in that regard. Not that that's a problem, just noting/speculating. There are advantages to an "old-style" HTML app, with little or no script, but interactivity is nice to have. Though i would love to see a fully interactive/AJAX fossil client (and have several kettles on the stove in that regard!), i couldn't bring myself to argue that a static UI is unnecessary/unwanted. JS is also used in part of the anti-bot mechanism which delays populating of hyperlinks until after (IIRC) the first mouse event. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
