As noted in the other thread, please replace Mark with David to correct my typing error.
Thanks, Dan On Oct 9, 12:20 pm, "Dan (Google Employee)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Xavier, > > Mark seemed to be under the impression that you were a Google > employee. You can say whatever you want (within reason), I'm just > making sure that Mark doesn't get the wrong impression. > > Dan > > On Oct 9, 10:25 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > What do i have to do with anything i am only on this board for a class > > and the answer that i gave was fine Dan. So what did i do? > > > On 10/09/2008, Dan (Google Employee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > -- > > Xavier A. Mathews > > Student/Developer/Web-Master > > GG Client Based Tech Support Specialist > > Hazel Crest Illinois > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Fear of a name, only increases fear of the thing itself." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
