On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:52:07PM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> What's up?
Isn't thsi fixed now?
--
Matthew Toseland
toad at amphibian.dyndns.org/amphibian at users.sourceforge.net
Full time freenet hacker.
http://freenetproject.org/
Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at
ICTHUS.
--
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:52:07PM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> What's up?
Isn't thsi fixed now?
--
Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Full time freenet hacker.
http://freenetproject.org/
Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at
ICTHUS.
msg06423/pgp0.pgp
Description: P
What's up?
___
devl mailing list
devl at freenetproject.org
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
What's up?
___
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 04:01:17AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:54:36PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > If you can tell me how you do that with HTML, and without using
> > > Javascript, then I would be most interested.
> > ->
>
> This opens up an entire new browser w
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:56:43PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:06:53AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:04:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:54:07AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > > > i'm sure we could have a long and protracted
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 04:01:17AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:54:36PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > If you can tell me how you do that with HTML, and without using
> > > Javascript, then I would be most interested.
> > ->
>
> This opens up an entire new browser w
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:54:36PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > If you can tell me how you do that with HTML, and without using
> > Javascript, then I would be most interested.
> ->
This opens up an entire new browser window, which isn't what we want at
all.
Ian.
--
Ian Clarke
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:45:42PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> After we have a good filter, we will be allowing limited scripting...
> certainly after that point it makes sense for the UI to use javascript.
> Before that it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't feel strongly about it
> (now). Impl
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:56:43PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:06:53AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:04:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:54:07AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > > > i'm sure we could have a long and protracted
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 07:01:03PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Javascript allows us to make the user
> > interface better than we otherwise could,
>
> I don't think this statement stands on its own. I fail to see how
> an annoying popup window is "better" than having the information
> present
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 07:01:03PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Javascript allows us to make the user
> > interface better than we otherwise could,
>
> I don't think this statement stands on its own. I fail to see how
> an annoying popup window is "better" than having the information
> present
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:54:36PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > If you can tell me how you do that with HTML, and without using
> > Javascript, then I would be most interested.
> ->
This opens up an entire new browser window, which isn't what we want at
all.
Ian.
--
Ian Clarke
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:45:42PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> After we have a good filter, we will be allowing limited scripting...
> certainly after that point it makes sense for the UI to use javascript.
> Before that it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't feel strongly about it
> (now). Impl
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> ->
Or just target="_blank" if there is no need to reference the target from
the parent document.
___
devl mailing list
devl at freenetproject.org
http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:16:56PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote:
>
> > No, most browsers will ask you where to save, then open a "download"
> > window, if you click on a link to a file with an unknown MIME type, when
> > in a web page, regardl
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:00:23PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Simon Porter (hailstormxp at fairadsl.co.uk) wrote:
>
> > I think what Ian was getting at was to have something pop up to download
> > your file while keeping you on the same Freesite. This way it would be
> > familiar to how users n
min at freenetproject.org]
> On Behalf Of Roger Hayter
> Sent: 21 December 2002 00:44
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: SplitFile UI Redux (Was: Re:
[freenet-dev]
> SplitFileRequestServlet
>
> In message <20021221000103.GB26473 at pegasus.wooledge.org>
In message <20021221000103.GB26473 at pegasus.wooledge.org>, Greg Wooledge
writes
>Ian Clarke (ian at freenetproject.org) wrote:
>
>> Javascript allows us to make the user
>> interface better than we otherwise could,
>
>I don't think this statement stands on its own. I fail to see how
>an annoyi
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:04:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:54:07AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > i'm sure we could have a long and protracted flamewar over this, so i'm
> > going to try and skip that by saying that if someone gives me a really
> > good reason to implent RTSP,
Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote:
> What Accept: header does wget send?
write(3, "GET http://wooledge.org/%7Egreg/seednodes.ref HTTP/1.0\r\nUser-Agent:
Wget/1.8.2\r\nHost: wooledge.org\r\nAccept: */*\r\n\r\n", 115) = 115
--
Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:06:53AM +1100, fish wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:04:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:54:07AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > > i'm sure we could have a long and protracted flamewar over this, so i'm
> > > going to try and skip that by saying that
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:34PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:31:46PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > At what point are we making the window? It would seem to me that we will
> > have to do this on the freenet page with the link to the file, which
> > means accepting a
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:32:29PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:43:36PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > 1. If you suggest to people (quite justifiably) that it is safest to
> > disable javascript and then use it in your interface, people are going
> > to think, rightly or
freenetproject.org]
> > On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> > Sent: 20 December 2002 17:15
> > To: devl at freenetproject.org
> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: SplitFile UI Redux (Was: Re:
> [freenet-dev]
> > SplitFileRequestServlet
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 200
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:15:00AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +, Cruise wrote:
> > Because of course your average user will tell the difference between
> > javascript on a Freesite (bad) that appears when they click a link,
> > from javascript on a download p
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:08:58AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:42:03AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > The last thing we want is
> > the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript
> > tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which applies the mo
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:28:13AM +0200, Tuomas Lukinmaa wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >Seems reasonable. Some browsers show the alt tags as tooltips, which
> >would be pretty cool.
>
> Alt attribute is used when image can't or won't be renderer. Title
> attribute is for tooltips. If you wa
Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote:
> No, most browsers will ask you where to save, then open a "download"
> window, if you click on a link to a file with an unknown MIME type, when
> in a web page, regardless of which OS you are using.
OK, but I was talking about how I persona
Simon Porter (hailstormxp at fairadsl.co.uk) wrote:
> I think what Ian was getting at was to have something pop up to download
> your file while keeping you on the same Freesite. This way it would be
> familiar to how users normally download files.
*Some* users. ;-)
But yes, I do understand. He
On Friday 20 December 2002 03:55 pm, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:34PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:31:46PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > At what point are we making the window? It would seem to me that we
> > > will have to do this on th
Ian Clarke (ian at freenetproject.org) wrote:
> Javascript allows us to make the user
> interface better than we otherwise could,
I don't think this statement stands on its own. I fail to see how
an annoying popup window is "better" than having the information
presented inside the browser tab/wi
In message <20021220145209.GA28385 at freenetproject.org>, Ian Clarke
writes
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:38:48PM +0100, marcoc1 at dada.it wrote:
>> >If you can explain, specifically, why this is bad, then we won't do it.
>>
>> Just to be coherent; we roughtly say "Active contents are Evil"
>> t
In message <20021220134203.GA27488 at freenetproject.org>, Ian Clarke
writes
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> The last thing we want is
>> the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript
>> tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which a
Matthew Toseland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What Accept: header does wget send?
write(3, "GET http://wooledge.org/%7Egreg/seednodes.ref HTTP/1.0\r\nUser-Agent:
Wget/1.8.2\r\nHost: wooledge.org\r\nAccept: */*\r\n\r\n", 115) = 115
--
Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybo
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:16:56PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Matthew Toseland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > No, most browsers will ask you where to save, then open a "download"
> > window, if you click on a link to a file with an unknown MIME type, when
> > in a web page, regardless of whic
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +, Cruise wrote:
>>Because of course your average user will tell the difference
>>between javascript on a Freesite (bad) that appears when they
>>click a link, from javascript on a download page (good) that
>>appears when they click a link.
>
>Generally spea
min at freenetproject.org
[mailto:devl-admin at freenetproject.org]
> On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> Sent: 20 December 2002 17:15
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: SplitFile UI Redux (Was: Re:
[freenet-dev]
> SplitFileRequestServlet
>
> On Fri, Dec 2
Matthew Toseland wrote:
->
Or just target="_blank" if there is no need to reference the target from
the parent document.
___
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Matthew Toseland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> No, most browsers will ask you where to save, then open a "download"
> window, if you click on a link to a file with an unknown MIME type, when
> in a web page, regardless of which OS you are using.
OK, but I was talking about how I personally downloa
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:00:23PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Simon Porter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > I think what Ian was getting at was to have something pop up to download
> > your file while keeping you on the same Freesite. This way it would be
> > familiar to how users normally down
Simon Porter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I think what Ian was getting at was to have something pop up to download
> your file while keeping you on the same Freesite. This way it would be
> familiar to how users normally download files.
*Some* users. ;-)
But yes, I do understand. He wants it to
On Friday 20 December 2002 03:55 pm, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:34PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:31:46PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > At what point are we making the window? It would seem to me that we
> > > will have to do this on th
Of Roger Hayter
> Sent: 21 December 2002 00:44
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: SplitFile UI Redux (Was: Re:
[freenet-dev]
> SplitFileRequestServlet
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg
Wooledge
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Wooledge
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Ian Clarke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Javascript allows us to make the user
interface better than we otherwise could,
I don't think this statement stands on its own. I fail to see how
an annoying popup window is "better"
Ian Clarke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Javascript allows us to make the user
> interface better than we otherwise could,
I don't think this statement stands on its own. I fail to see how
an annoying popup window is "better" than having the information
presented inside the browser tab/window tha
At 05.42 20/12/02 -0800, you wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> The last thing we want is=20
>> the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript=
>=20
>> tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which applies the more so when=
>=20
>>
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:38:48PM +0100, marcoc1 at dada.it wrote:
>>>If you can explain, specifically, why this is bad, then we won't
>>>do it.
>>
>>Just to be coherent; we roughtly say "Active contents are Evil" to
>>Joe users that don't care so much, so I think it is better not to
>>use it in
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:06:53AM +1100, fish wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:04:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:54:07AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > > i'm sure we could have a long and protracted flamewar over this, so i'm
> > > going to try and skip that by saying that
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:34PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:31:46PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > At what point are we making the window? It would seem to me that we will
> > have to do this on the freenet page with the link to the file, which
> > means accepting a
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:32:29PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:43:36PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > 1. If you suggest to people (quite justifiably) that it is safest to
> > disable javascript and then use it in your interface, people are going
> > to think, rightly or
Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> > Sent: 20 December 2002 17:15
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: SplitFile UI Redux (Was: Re:
> [freenet-dev]
> > SplitFileRequestServlet
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +, Cruise wrote:
>
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:15:00AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +, Cruise wrote:
> > Because of course your average user will tell the difference between
> > javascript on a Freesite (bad) that appears when they click a link,
> > from javascript on a download p
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:08:58AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:31:46PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> At what point are we making the window? It would seem to me that we will
> have to do this on the freenet page with the link to the file, which
> means accepting a specific javascript in freesites...
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:31:46PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> At what point are we making the window? It would seem to me that we will
> have to do this on the freenet page with the link to the file, which
> means accepting a specific javascript in freesites...
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
In message <20021220033352.GV31520 at pegasus.wooledge.org>, Greg Wooledge
writes
>Ian Clarke (ian at freenetproject.org) wrote:
>
>> It might be easy to implement, but it just seems like overkill to have
>> three interfaces to something that is a relatively small part of the
>> overall Freenet e
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:43:36PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> 1. If you suggest to people (quite justifiably) that it is safest to
> disable javascript and then use it in your interface, people are going
> to think, rightly or wrongly, that you are confused.
Not if they understand *why* we ar
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:42:03AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > The last thing we want is
> > the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript
> > tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which applies the mo
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:43:36PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> 1. If you suggest to people (quite justifiably) that it is safest to
> disable javascript and then use it in your interface, people are going
> to think, rightly or wrongly, that you are confused.
Not if they understand *why* we ar
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:45:27PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> People will think it is alright to enable javascript because Mr. Clarke
> says so. This is a Bad Thing.
Ah yes, the good ol' "users are stupid and it is our job to babysit
them" argument. You guys are really getting desparate now!
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:28:13AM +0200, Tuomas Lukinmaa wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >Seems reasonable. Some browsers show the alt tags as tooltips, which
> >would be pretty cool.
>
> Alt attribute is used when image can't or won't be renderer. Title
> attribute is for tooltips. If you wa
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:45:27PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> People will think it is alright to enable javascript because Mr. Clarke
> says so. This is a Bad Thing.
Ah yes, the good ol' "users are stupid and it is our job to babysit
them" argument. You guys are really getting desparate now!
> We tell users not enable javascript because it's inherently unsafe
> within Freenet.
> Then, we use javascript within Freenet (as far as the user can tell),
> as if we /expect/ them to ignore what we've suggested.
Ok, so you are worried about the unlikely possibility that a user who
has not dis
> We tell users not enable javascript because it's inherently unsafe
> within Freenet.
> Then, we use javascript within Freenet (as far as the user can tell),
> as if we /expect/ them to ignore what we've suggested.
Ok, so you are worried about the unlikely possibility that a user who
has not dis
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:53:06PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
> Apologies for throwing a spanner in the works but what about pop up ad
> blockers and also people automatically closing the window themselves. I
> seem to have developed pop up ad reflex now. A window that pops up I
> just close ASAP w
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:53:06PM -, Simon Porter wrote:
> Apologies for throwing a spanner in the works but what about pop up ad
> blockers and also people automatically closing the window themselves. I
> seem to have developed pop up ad reflex now. A window that pops up I
> just close ASAP w
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:53:23PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > Obviously, we will be using RTSP in TCP mode - duh!
> > The clients support this? LOL!
yes, udp is not the automagic pancea in streaming that everyone hoped ^_^.
> Some do - the poin
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Mono ogg files use very little more bandwidth than stereo ones. Read the
> papers sometime.
this may be true in the papers. however, in the real world, mono
vs. stereo @ 16kbps means 22khz vs. 11khz, and it's a huge difference to
audio quality.
i
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Ian Clarke wrote:
> 1) Streaming (which would support a "live" ogg audio broadcast)
I've been holding off on rewriting this in java and attempting to add it
to fred for a couple of reasons, but I am going to do it in the near
future. it was only implmented in python because
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Clarke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:38:48PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If you can explain, specifically, why this is bad, then we won't do it.
Just to be coherent; we roughtly say "Active contents are Evil"
to Joe users that don
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Clarke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
The last thing we want is
the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript
tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which applies the more s
> From: Ian Clarke
> Date: 19 Dec 2002 23:11:02 -0800
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:25:54PM -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> > 1) Ian vs. Matthew: Who is the most arrogant?
>
> Don't you understand that bitchfights are the only source of recreation
> we Freenet geeks get? For the love of Rms,
From: Ian Clarke
> 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 Freen
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +, Cruise wrote:
>>Because of course your average user will tell the difference
>>between javascript on a Freesite (bad) that appears when they
>>click a link, from javascript on a download page (good) that
>>appears when they click a link.
>
>Generally spea
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> Sent: 20 December 2002 17:15
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: SplitFile UI Redux (Was: Re:
[freenet-dev]
> SplitFileRequestServlet
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +, Cruise w
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +, Cruise wrote:
> Because of course your average user will tell the difference between
> javascript on a Freesite (bad) that appears when they click a link,
> from javascript on a download page (good) that appears when they
> click a link.
Generally speakin
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +, Cruise wrote:
> Because of course your average user will tell the difference between
> javascript on a Freesite (bad) that appears when they click a link,
> from javascript on a download page (good) that appears when they
> click a link.
Generally speakin
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
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
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Seems reasonable. Some browsers show the alt tags as tooltips, which
> would be pretty cool.
Alt attribute is used when image can't or won't be renderer. Title
attribute is for tooltips. If you want to get tooltips in all browsers,
you'll use title.
_
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:38:48PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>If you can explain, specifically, why this is bad, then we won't
>>>do it.
>>
>>Just to be coherent; we roughtly say "Active contents are Evil" to
>>Joe users that don't care so much, so I think it is better not to
>>use it in t
From: Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 on
> From: Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 19 Dec 2002 23:11:02 -0800
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:25:54PM -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> > 1) Ian vs. Matthew: Who is the most arrogant?
>
> Don't you understand that bitchfights are the only source of recreation
> we Freenet geeks get? F
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:38:48PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >If you can explain, specifically, why this is bad, then we won't do it.
>
> Just to be coherent; we roughtly say "Active contents are Evil"
> to Joe users that don't care so much, so I think it is
> better not to use it in the
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:38:48PM +0100, marcoc1 at dada.it wrote:
> >If you can explain, specifically, why this is bad, then we won't do it.
>
> Just to be coherent; we roughtly say "Active contents are Evil"
> to Joe users that don't care so much, so I think it is
> better not to use it in th
At 05.42 20/12/02 -0800, you wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> The last thing we want is=20
>> the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript=
>=20
>> tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which applies the more so when=
>=20
>>
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> The last thing we want is
> the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript
> tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which applies the more so when
> javascript is disabled.
The only Javascript functiona
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
> The last thing we want is
> the multiple warnings and tendency to stall inherent in using javascript
> tested with IE when it is used elsewhere, which applies the more so when
> javascript is disabled.
The only Javascript functiona
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:04:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:54:07AM +1100, fish wrote:
> > i'm sure we could have a long and protracted flamewar over this, so i'm
> > going to try and skip that by saying that if someone gives me a really
> > good reason to implent RTSP,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Wooledge
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Ian Clarke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It might be easy to implement, but it just seems like overkill to have
three interfaces to something that is a relatively small part of the
overall Freenet experience.
I agree that th
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 06:09:37PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 02:04:21AM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > But is it such a big deal to
> > implement three different detail level modes just for the single-bar
> > interface? I doubt it's much code.
>
> It might be easy to i
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:57:53PM -0500, Andrew Rodland wrote:
> On Thursday 19 December 2002 08:47 pm, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:43:05PM -0500, Andrew Rodland wrote:
> > > Please, please, I know this is a "blue" theme, but if you're going to use
> > > green, don't mak
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:52:37PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 01:37:40AM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > Nice climb-down Matthew, I almost didn't notice you admitting that you
> > > were wrong. Almost.
> > I don't care at this point.
>
> If you weren't being so arrog
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 20. December 2002 01:52, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > rather you split the bar up into several components (4 in my proposal
> > IIRC), each representing the number of blocks in each of the 4 states I
> > outlined.
> More than four.
> 1. Not
devl-admin at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-admin at freenetproject.org]
> > On Behalf Of Andrew Rodland
> > Sent: 20 December 2002 01:43
> > To: devl at freenetproject.org
> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] SplitFileRequestServlet
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
02 01:53
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] SplitFileRequestServlet
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:48:20PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > > I disagree. The information "failed, retrying" is essentially
the
> same as
> > > >
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:48:20PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > I disagree. The information "failed, retrying" is essentially the same as
> > > "trying" - at least for the average user. Not even I care whether has
> > > already been retried. I want to see it failed or succeeded (though I
> > >
--Original Message-
> From: devl-admin at freenetproject.org
[mailto:devl-admin at freenetproject.org]
> On Behalf Of Andrew Rodland
> Sent: 20 December 2002 01:43
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] SplitFileRequestServlet
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAG
1 - 100 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
