Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We can't go around putting our heads in the sand because the
>> majority are doing something we can't cope with.
SH> Agreed. We should not put our heads in the sand. The best way to
SH> cope with a problem is to discover its cause and eradicate it.
The cause is not Java Script, but silly people writing not compliant stuff.
(like JPGs with .GIF extension and wrong MIME type ...)
SH> For this reason, I am recommending the abolition of Java Script.
Great :)))
And you think that JS will be abolished this once, because you recommend so
:))))
And again ... correct and sane JS shouldn't pose any problems.
(I also have seen 100%javaScript sites, which use JS also for links ...
this is NOT SANE)
SH> Of course I realize that very few people will listen to me because
SH> the simplest solutions always seem to receive the strongest
SH> resistance to being accepted.
This doesn't have anything to do with simple or complex.
The people don't see any reason for the abolition of JS.
It can add to the design, and if done correctly, than all sites would work
with all browsers !
(that many people are too silly to do it correctly is not a problem of JS)
SH> Nearly everyone agreed that smallpox was bad.
And where is the parallel to JS ??
Except this list, I have never heared somebody complaining about it :)))
PS: IMHO Michael wrote that he will implement the 'virus' into Arachne ??
(because there have been many people asking for it ... )
PPS: I absolutely can live without JS.
I don't use it ... but it is NOT the evil ... (this is already Bill Gates!)
SH> All the best,
SH> Sam
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> What are the instructions doing in the trash? <=-
