Sam,
What * are* the tags for javasnit that meet standards? <-- begin script
---> and <--- end script -- > are just REM statements right?
So if a script starts out with <script language = javascript> sort of
thing and ends with </script>, what isn't "standard" and what *is*
standard?
On Mon, 22 May 2000 09:47:35 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
<snip>
> If the tags signalling the beginning and ending of the Java Script are
> in compliance with standards, then Arachne will simply ignore the JS and
> display the page anyway. This is the way things should be.
> To adhere to standards, what are the acceptable methods to indicate on a
> web page the beginning and ending of JS?
Since few seem to know what is OK and what isn't, how can we expect
Arachne or users to figure out what's what? And who/when decides what
javasnit, applet, shockwave or whatever is html 4.0 compliant?
> Does anyone think that it may be possible, practical, or feasible for
> ISPs to monitor web pages for standards compliance so as to not permit
> the posting of pages that are not "standards-compliant" with respect to
> use of proper tags? I think the www community would be very grateful to
> ISPs that would do this.
First I was going to say NO WAY that was possible; second I was going to
say NO WAY would most page designers *stand* for it; third I was going
to say ISP would not want to screw with it.
But, it *is* possible. IIRC there are web pages available already out
there that scan an html page to see if it's done according to HTML
standards, so theoretically any ISP that currently uses web-based pages
to allow uploads could filter through one of those programs and reject
and code that didn't meet standards, along with a message as to what
parts of the proposed page failed. But just because a thing CAN be
done doesn't mean that ISPs *will* do it; most of the web page providers
that allow html uploads to web sites expect you to be using their tools
to write the pages [many of them never convert to actual HTML code!] and
a provider isn't going to question its own tools, is it? Another
problem is that inserting a filter between the upload the the
destination, with a "reject" decision box, would double server usage at
a minimum, and probably increase server use by a factor of 4 or so.
Those dependent upon storage space and built-in tools just to have a web
site would put up with a lot of stuff, so it might be possible under
those circumstances.
However, how does one go about screening pages which are uploaded via
FTP to a private directory? An ISP can't do that AFAICT. Unless there
was a single ultimate decision making machine for html code standards,
and unless it could be set up to append an encoded password that the FTP
site would scan for prior to allowing the upload, it doesn't seem
possible. Trying to check every page uploaded to sites being hosted is
a little ilke trying to scan messages being uploaded to a BBS for
content -- it might be possible, but it surely isn't practical.
Compliance to standards can't be enforced before-the-fact in an
atmosphere of free speech. And since some people could care less about
what other people think of their sites, having a "Bad Pages Central"
site where users could nominate the most egregious bad pages on the web
wouldn't change the majority of web sites themselves. And let's face
one fact: You can download javascripts that claim to do things that
would take hours & lots of training to do using just HTML standards.
The best defense against continued javascript abuse would be to develop,
and release free to the public, an HTML creation tool that would write
decent HTML code that could replace javascripts ... and the resulting
code would be smaller than javascripts doing the same thing.
In addition, they -- whoever NL they are -- are talking about replacing
HTML with new standards. sheesh! I don't see an end to experimentation
and 'flash' that some site designers feel they need to have ... not
until every person on earth has direct internet access and has visited
every page on the web and decided that they don't like whatever standard
one page uses but like a replacement page. And what are the chances of
that ever happening?
l.d.
--
-- "I need not like the company I keep, if that company helps me
attain my own personal goals and does me no harm." anon.
--
-- Arachne V1.61, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
