On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: [...]
> There are very very few sites requiring java, even fewer useful sites, Right now this is true. But who tells you it can't change. > It does wonders to drop a "... ts ts, requiring java for using your > site, will have to surf elsewehre then, even the last microsoftie now > knows that downloading any odd program and running it is a dumb idea" > into the feedback box of the web designer. Even management types can > understand that argument. > > I have seen the number of sites using java for menues decrease. The > peak must have been when Joe Doe discovered that java menues with > frontpage is easy, then discovering that the feature is a bad idea. > > > I know a couple. > > Well tell them to XXXX. There's also a big difference between "know" > and "use". Reformulation: I _use_! a couple. And they don't use it for menus but for graphs which by the way they are presented can't be done in gifs/png (which are static) or javascript (no graphics AFAIK, unless you call java methods) Surf elsewhere ? What if there isn't an "elsewhere" ? > > Plus there are the new web servers embedded in all sorts of > > devices which again require Java, e.g. the new HP printers. > > You won't catch RedRubbish (whatsitsname) from that. If it causes > security trouble, I would be posting straight to bugtraq and > full-disclosure without bothering to inform HP (because they absolutely > don't deserve it in that case). You are missing the point. There are sites which require java and sites where "you" should turn it off (generally by default it should be off, indeed, at least for the time being). This basically require time-consuming housekeeping. [...] > Won't happen. The number of sites requiring javascript is already going > down. Security reasons are being cited. Do you have any pointers to this ? [...] Cheers, -- Ryurick M. Hristev mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Systems Manager University of Canterbury, Physics & Astronomy Dept., New Zealand
