I thought I'd get involved in this one as I was the one who kinda started
it.
When developing a site I keep to simple principles.
If functionality can be done on the server, you do it on the server.
Period, no argument. The reasons are to do with controlling the deployment
environment. What happ
e is
accessable to a wider variety of people.
:)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: January 18, 2001 08:15
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Adam, you got to be kidding?
You actually develop with the mindset that a user might not have scripting
enabled?
Can't help but do the math. 100,000 hits can't possibly be
insignificant.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Please ...
>
> I just checked Webtrends for browser types hitting our site and 98% of all
> browsers are NN 4+ and IE 4+ ... with the over 60% being IE 5. With a sample
> of over 5 million hit
. if I was spending 50k on a project, I'd want that whole 100%
;)
Todd Ashworth
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Great idea Adam! [Was: Re: Adam, you go
eats you.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 07:15
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Adam, you got to be kidding?
>
>
> You actually develop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Bill,
This is a silly argument, so sorry to all for pursuing it. Bill, I
guess you're not familiar with any of the following Javascript
security issues:
JavaScript Redirect Vulnerability in Internet Explorer
http://support.microsoft.com/support/
. if I was spending 50k on a project, I'd want that whole 100%
;)
Todd Ashworth
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Great idea Adam! [Was: Re: Adam, you go
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 4:10 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Great idea Adam! [Was: Re: Adam, you got to be kidding?
>
>
> Please ...
>
> I just checked Webtrends for
giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 4:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Adam, you got to be kidding?
on 1/18/01 8:54 AM, Aaron Johnson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your assumption is that 98% of all users have scripting enabled.
> Reality, as always is differ
> Ouch ... Aaron. You think the Love Bug was browser-based
> script? It was vba file attachment. Yeap ... an executable.
Well, not exactly. The Love Bug virus is a WSH virus - it uses Windows
Script Host to execute. It contains VBScript, and is typically sent as an
attachment. Nonetheless, you c
You could do it with "dueling refreshes", as follows...
Setop your first page with:
JavaScript=#JavaScriptEnabled#
Loading...
wn conclusions.
Jeremy Allen
elliptIQ Inc.
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:15 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: Adam, you got to be kidding?
>
>
>You actually develop with the mindset that a user migh
At 08:59 AM 1/18/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>. i'd be curious to see if
>amazon.com uses javascript.
I remember reading somewhere that Yahoo initially had a tiny javascript to
set the cursor in a form field box when the page loaded. They took it out
to save the extra loading time (which was what .
on 1/18/01 8:54 AM, Aaron Johnson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your assumption is that 98% of all users have scripting enabled.
> Reality, as always is different. I'd guess much lower, especially
> taking into consideration all the viruses and IE bugs over the last
> year where users, especiall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You really are going to tell the website owner to ante up
> another X thousands of dollars to develop downward browser
> capability? Not to mention the cost of maintaining the various
> website variants.
In a lot of cases, it's the incompatible, browser-specific
devel
8) 240-0057
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Adam, you got to be kidding?
You actually develop with the mindset that a user might not have scripting
enabled? Ouch!
My guess would be that at a
, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Great idea Adam! [Was: Re: Adam, you got to be kidding?
| Please ...
|
| I just checked Webtrends for browser types hitting our site and 98% of all
| browsers are NN 4+ and IE 4+ ... with the over 60% being IE 5. With a
sample
| of over 5 million hits.
|
| You really ar
So let's talk about IE 5. If I remember correctly (and I am known not to
occasionally) the security patch for IE that came out after the big virus
scare disables JS in IE5.
They aren't talking about creating different versions for
cross-compatibility; they're talking about planning a single ve
older browsers as the
minimum.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:10 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Great idea Adam! [Was: Re: Adam, you got to be kidding?
Please ...
I just checked Webtrends for browser types hitting our si
I think what he was suggesting is that you use scripting to make your web site great.
But you make sure a minimum functionality works without scripting.
If a user doesn't get validation he can still use your site. If a use can't submit,
your site is useless to him.
At 08:14 AM 1/18/01 -0500, [E
> How
>you can expect users to go back to your website if half of it doesn't work
>because they haven't got the right settings or the latest browser? This
>seems to be a very narrow minded attitude to have and will cost you
>potential customers and clients.
Our site is geared to a specialized s
Ouch ... Aaron. You think the Love Bug was browser-based script? It was vba
file attachment. Yeap ... an executable.
In a message dated 1/18/01 10:39:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'd guess much lower, especially
> taking into consideration all the viruses and IE b
Please ...
I just checked Webtrends for browser types hitting our site and 98% of all
browsers are NN 4+ and IE 4+ ... with the over 60% being IE 5. With a sample
of over 5 million hits.
You really are going to tell the website owner to ante up another X thousands
of dollars to develop downwa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill,
Ouch yerself. :)
Your assumption is that 98% of all users have scripting enabled.
Reality, as always is different. I'd guess much lower, especially
taking into consideration all the viruses and IE bugs over the last
year where users, especia
a development methodology.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Adam, you got to be kidding?
You actually develop with the mindset that a user might not have scripting
enabled? Ouch!
My guess
CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Adam, you got to be kidding?
How do you explain that to an important customer when a user with a
javascriptdisabled browser who tried to submit a feedbackform couldn't get
it to work, and phoned the company complaining about it?
I agree that some funcionality can
y, January 18, 2001 8:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Adam, you got to be kidding?
You actually develop with the mindset that a user might not have scripting
enabled? Ouch!
My guess would be that at a minimum, 98% of all users have scripting
enabled.
So, you would forfeit the capability of client-sid
+44 (0) 20 7387 8890
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 January 2001 13:52
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Great idea Adam! [Was: Re: Adam, you got to be kidding?
Let me guess ... the good of the many does NOT outweigh the good of the few!
Geez ... do y
> How do you explain that to an important customer when a user with a
> javascriptdisabled browser who tried to submit a feedbackform couldn't get
> it to work, and phoned the company complaining about it?
>
> I agree that some funcionality can and should be done on the clientside
> using javascri
Let me guess ... the good of the many does NOT outweigh the good of the few!
Geez ... do you develop all your web pages strictly in English? Hmmm ... talk
about 'the height of arrogance'.
Bill Reichard
Willow Gold
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.willowgold.com
In a message dated 1/18/01 8:25:55
lduck AS - Nedre Slottsgate 5, N-0157 OSLO, Noreg/Norway
* +47 23 31 03 04 / 91 83 20 51
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* http://www.pixelduck.com/
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 2:15 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Su
Adam, I applaud you for doing things the right way - assuming
that the client won't have javascript enabled. As a web
developer, as well as a user of a variety of browsers in which
there either is no javascript, minimal javascript, or javascript
which works differently from version to versio
You actually develop with the mindset that a user might not have scripting
enabled? Ouch!
My guess would be that at a minimum, 98% of all users have scripting enabled.
So, you would forfeit the capability of client-side data validation,
client-side DOM manipulation, etc.?
You would add unnee
33 matches
Mail list logo
