Hi Mark, I'm the only Googler who consistently reads this board, and as I pointed out in the other thread, Xavier is not a Google employee.
Also, I'm not exactly sure what point you'd like me to defend since you haven't seemed to offer an point of contention in this thread, other than obfuscation of code "motivated by shame." In reality, the iGoogle code is "minified" in order shrink the amount of code transmitted when someone loads iGoogle. This decreases latency and saves bandwidth. As I said in response to the original post, I doubt we've stopped supporting Firefox. The most likely scenario is that a specific UA string is being misinterpreted by the code that displays the warning. As far as I know, iGoogle will render identically when it displays the warning to when it does not, so other than as a minor cosmetic flaw, it's harmless. Best, Dan On Oct 9, 7:47 am, David Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 8, 9:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Thats not true!!! > > What do you know? An additional one-line, top-posted response. 33% > of the words are mispelled and your exclamation key is broken (all the > better to make really strong and cogent points like this one.) > > I don't hear anyone else "defending" them as their scripts are > indefensible. The costant obfuscation is likely motivated by shame > (not like anyone wants to steal their crap.) > > Interesting that Google employees (who seem to be crawling all over > the place) are mute on the subject(s). > > Great site this. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iGoogle Developer Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Gadgets-API?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
