2010/9/18 Clément Vollet <[email protected]>: > Ok, then, should I proceed like that : > > - adding a templating system, > - design a new UI, and implement it in HTML + CSS only, > - add GWT support (well, use it if it's already implemented) to make it more > dynamic.
If we are going to use GWT we should really be using it for the entire UI, but not for the "proxy" component of fproxy, which displays pages retrieved from Freenet. Based on my understanding of GWT it is designed for creating UIs in a browser, which is what we need, but it is not designed to degrade gracefully if Javascript isn't supported. I find the whole argument that we must support people who don't want to enable javascript to be unpersuasive. We can and do filter out any javascript from any page retrieved from Freenet so that isn't the issue. We are talking about people refusing to run Javascript that is written by us and served up by the Freenet node to their browser. It is no more dangerous for someone to run Javascript written by us in their browser, than it is for them to run Java code written by us in their operating system. Given that disabling Javascript with Freenet does nothing to improve a user's security, can someone remind me why our entire approach to a UI redesign is predicated on supporting those that irrationally insist on disabling Javascript in their browsers? Why must we inconvenience 99% of our users to accomodate the irrational 1%? Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: [email protected] Ph: +1 512 422 3588 _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
