Clarence Verge wrote: > Do you care ? > Should this "appropriation" of Arachne be accepted/tolerated ? > Am I feeling unnecessarily depressed about the end of Arachne ? > Am I trying to interfere in the process of evolution ?
I dont see this as much as "The End of Arachne" as much the next phase of it. My problem with https, JavaScript, and the rest of the crap is not that its there, but due to its improper implementation. A Javascript interpreter doesnt HAVE to be bloated. It can be small, efficent, and capable just as the fat ones. The same goes with just about any silly bit of crap that was pushed, sometimes with nothing but commercial reasons in mind, into the web. But be what the reasons are, these days its hard to enter a site without etleast one of the "craps". And i'm refering to Minimal support, too. Also, that "crap" could have been nice if not only the interpreter was small and efficent, but also the code that the webmasters use. And that, unfortunatly, is definetly not going to improve anytime soon. Yes, I can live without the crap. But every now and then you have to have support for it. "Just dont enter" is not the right approach. It only makes them, the faulty webmasters, "right". "DOS cant do those things". Thats what you proove by not supporting it. As illogical as this approach may be, this is how the world works. We're not vulcans. Buttom line: Support for "crap" should definetly be added. And if not for all the reasons I mentioned, then etleast for this one: Arachne is oriented not only for us, the "uber geeks", but also for the casual crowed. And as suprising as this may sound, they wouldnt care even a bit about principles. If it doesnt support JavaScript, full CSS, and other stuff: "Its not good enough", and poof they'll hop back to the 'normal, safe' enviroment of IE. Again, not really logical, but the world doesnt work on logic. All this stuff can be designed to work on a 486+. And if not, well, you can always cancel it in the Options menu. Thats what I do in Mozilla. </soap box off>
