> 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)
This case would be very exceptional, and you'd know the site so the risk isn't so big. > Surf elsewhere ? What if there isn't an "elsewhere" ? Google knows how many million pages? Sure there's an elsewhere... ;;) > 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. Use a browser which enables java on a per-domain basis. > > 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 ? No, sorry, it's an empirical observation. E.g. one was a German ecommerce site I came across a few days ago, they had non-javascript alternate pages. They wouldn't go into the trouble unless they had a reason, and the reason must be user-demand. (Or perhaps too much trouble with javascript?) Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
