> Wouldn't it be best to have it an *option* to specify whether Moz/Camino > actually downloads the content or not? (hidden of course - let's not clutter > up > the UI; I'll add my voice to that position)
Options are good. But what's the behaviour now? Hidden . . . I don't like that word when it comes to options. Perhaps there doesn't need to be a UI control for EVERYTHING if simplicity is what you're shooting for, but hidden is a stupid concept. What you'd want, if not UI controls for placing entries in a text file (user.js, for example), is a document that sits next to the readme that explains not only where to put preference entries, but what each does. A file buried in Camino/Contents/MacOS/anotherfolder/whichfolderwasitagain/oneofthesefiles.js doesn't cut it. (Yeah, the app needs it, but if that's what an end user is given to look at to figure out what prefs to set for what, don't be shocked that people don't find reasons to move from OmniWeb or Safari.) Anyway: Hidden is bad; documented is good. If a developer isn't going to include GUI controls for preferences people just might want to set or alter, he'd damn well better document the alternative he's chosen to go with. > > What I'm thinking of, is, crafty tricksy servers which *check to see* whether > your browser has actually downloaded the image/s before letting you continue. > > In an 'arms race', let's not fool ourselves and think that they don't know > what > we're doing - and that some of them (the smart ones) try to detect this. > > If I recall correctly, way back when I was still using iCab (pre OS X), and > filtered out ads, I ran across a few sites that, apparently, did this (checked > to see if ads were downloaded, and didn't behave correctly, if they weren't). > > Can anyone confirm/deny this? Was I smoking some particularly poor-quality > crack that day? Am I, right now? > -- > No, I can see how this might be possible. I can't say that I've had it happen to me before, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. If you had a GUI toggle for content filtering (on/off), you could assign a keystroke to it and turn it off for that second it takes to load the affected site. ;-) /tongue-in-cheek In all seriousness, what if the devs took a vote on either the Camino main site or the dev list to see what preferences people wanted in the preferences UI, and then just added X of those? You don't need ALL of the Gecko settings (since there are so freakin' many that it WOULD clutter up the preferences dialog), but that doesn't mean more Gecko and Camino-specific options shouldn't be added. How come I have to edit a text file to turn images off? WTF? -/- Mikey-San [this signature has been classified] _______________________________________________ Camino mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/camino
