> with folks that refuse to run JavaScript Not "JavaScript"; "Unverified, potentially malicious code with a rich history of exploits inside a frame I use to navigate the online world". It wouldn't matter if the code was LISP or Python; the problem isn't the language, it's the context.
That said, I do run Javascript, albiet through NoScript. I just wish there were more fine-grained policy restrictions I could place on it, such as "No XmlHttpRequest/Websocket" or "No browser introspection (fonts, boundaries, etc.)", and let webapps that are trying to fingerprint me without my permission just crash and burn. On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:27:07 -0700 (PDT) "Al Billings" <[email protected]> wrote: > Only if you wish it was "the good old days" but then this is the list > with folks that refuse to run JavaScript and don't understand why > anyone would want to use twitter, as I recall. > > > > > > Al > > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Adam Back > <[email protected]="mailto:[email protected]";>> wrote: Well you > should say the web developers regressed since then. > > > Adam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
