L.D wrote:
>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.
It's possible for a firewall to filter out pages that uses ex. JavaScript
(and many other things) as well.
>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.
Sadly I agree.
>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.
Really? I haven't seen any such things - most JS that comes out these days
are for people that can't understand how to make a link (<A
HREF="somefile">my link</A>) and that can't take hours of training.
>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.
There's one program on the market that earlier would remove JS - it's
called FrontPage. However the pages would increase incredibly in size and
no dynamic links to images would work afterwards (this is still a problem
AFAIK).
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/ DOS programs, Star Wars ...
