>On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:38:48PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>If you can explain, specifically, why this is bad, then we won't >>>do it. >> >>Just to be coherent; we roughtly say "Active contents are Evil" to >>Joe users that don't care so much, so I think it is better not to >>use it in the Freenet interface. > >Urm, we say "Active content is evil when downloaded from Freenet". > >Please explain, specifically, the bad thing that will happen if we >use Javascript in the manner I describe. If you can explain what >this bad thing is, then we won't use Javascript. Vague "Javascript >is evil" responses don't count. > >Ian.
Because of course your average user will tell the difference between javascript on a Freesite (bad) that appears when they click a link, from javascript on a download page (good) that appears when they click a link. Maybe they will. Maybe we don't care. I hope the latter isn't true, and I doubt the former, but hey, whatever. It's not that javascript is bad. It's not that your method is bad. Far from it. It's just that a lot of people will have trouble telling the difference between stuff that is and stuff that isn't. Rather than risk them accepting everything, surely it would be better to accept nothing, and loose a tiny bit of visual nicety? [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ] _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
