Hello Jools
On 19-Jan-01, you wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:35:03AM +0100, Matt Sealey wrote:
>>
>> Hello John
>>
>> and must be used because it's trying to work out exactly what has
>> been passed to the URL in terms of arguments, and manipulate them.
>
> i dont see your logic here. i always prefer server side solutions.
The logic behind it is simple: sometimes the only way you can do things
to a set of working practices is to implement it client side. In this case,
they're messing with the arguments passed to the script that loads up
the rest of the site. Voyager cocks up on something, and outputs
garbage, which is passed to the script, which vomits whatever it does
to the screen.
There is no "flaw" in the design of that website, other than they didn't
consider someone would be using a browser that had such broken
Javascript (because it quite obviously executes but breaks).
It's not a bad thing to assume certain attributes of your target
browsers. It's certainly not a bad thing for a webdesigner to take
a different route in making a site than YOU might have.
In this case, the 'wrong' lands very squarely in Voyager's hands.
Thanks
--
Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Website http://www.kittycat.co.uk
_____________________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - http://v3.vapor.com/
Voyager FAQ....: http://faq.vapor.com/voyager/
Listserver Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=HELP
Unsubscribe....: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE
