This whole line of argument is just stupid. The web is built on open standards. If you don't want your site to be built on the web, then use flash or something.
On Jul 9, 2:10 pm, Luke Maurer <luke.v.mau...@gmail.com> wrote: > You must be using a pretty wimpy obfuscator if a mere code formatter > will undo it. If your IP is the big issue here, won't you be using > something that does more than get rid of whitespace? Like renaming > local and private variables to nonsense? That's not something that > Firebug *could* undo, with or without DRM-style permission bits. > > - Luke > > On Jul 9, 11:56 am, Rako <mscam...@rakovszky.eu> wrote: > > > I agree with you, that there is no need for Firebug to "obfuscate" JS > > code. > > What I object, is the request to implement features that would > > counteract the obfuscation created by the owner of the site. > > What I suggested, is a method, through which owners of web-sites could > > allow/forbid the use of FB by strangers to "debug" their code. > > I think FB should not try to display obfuscated code more legibly. > > This would tantamount to try to decifer encripted data. > > I have no objection to stand-alone programs to make obfuscated code > > more legible, but as a feature of Firebug it would be criminal. > > Would you like to have programs around that spy-out your passwords, > > decript your private emails? I would not. > > Please do not turn Firebug into Spyware. > > > On Jul 8, 6:47 pm, Rob Campbell <robmcampb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Rako, further obfuscation of JS code will never be a feature of > > > Firebug. Most minimized JS is already quite obfuscated and, if > > > anything, we'll produce a mechanism to display it more legibly, either > > > by extension or with a feature. > > > > As for the Off vs [X] button, I really feel this was a bit of a wasted > > > effort and a discussion that blew the issue out of proportion. Now > > > we've implemented this change to appease a noisy few. Most users will > > > learn that the [X] button means "Close / Off" after they've used it. > > > It behaves similarly to how you'd expect a close button to work in any > > > other area of Firefox or the OS. I, for one, will be glad to see the > > > "Off" label go away as soon as possible. > > > > On Jul 7, 3:33 pm, Rako <mscam...@rakovszky.eu> wrote: > > > > > I do not rant. > > > > I simply explain why is this extension/modification to/of the > > > > activation needed. > > > > Perhaps my reasoning offends you (are you one of the reverse- > > > > engineers?), but it is not going to change my reasoning. > > > > > On Jul 7, 12:34 pm, alfonsoml <aml...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 7, 8:32 am, Rako <mscam...@rakovszky.eu> wrote: > > > > > > > I agree with all you say, but what annoys me, are the requests for > > > > > > new > > > > > > features in FB to enable reverse engineering. > > > > > > Then place your rants in those threads. > > > > > This is already too heated, please, don't mix unrelated things. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
