[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> elsewhere in the criteria there is language about functionality > I think there's confusing with language of "impose" > Many websites function with requests blocked. For example, Google > Analytics being blocked doesn't break anything. The intention of the criteria about JS code is that the site should work if the user blocks the Javascript code. I don't see a need to give a site a bad mark for referring to Google Analytics or anything else that doesn't stop the site from functioning with LibreJS. Our general policy towards JS is that if you appreciate the issue you should make your browser block it, so we judge sites assuming you have done that. However, I wouldn't okject to an A+ criterion of "no nonfree JS at all in the pages" or "no JS at all in the pages." -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
