On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Michael Kimsal wrote: > Miguel Cruz wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, michael kimsal wrote: >>> Can someone point me to hardware that is still in active use that >>> can't handle javascript? >> >> Palm Pilot >> Cell phones > > Those don't generally support HTML either, but some WML or something > similar. Palm's proxy service for the palm vii would translate HTML on > the fly to its own markup language.
Whatever the mechanism, they're still out there - and in ever-growing numbers. > Call me crazy, but I have this funny feeling most people doing the kind > of projects where javascript menus are even a consideration aren't also > doing cell phone work. I have no doubt that you can categorize a set of projects where the user experience would benefit from JavaScript and where visits from cell phones are highly unlikely. But that doesn't make it fair to generalize that there is no hardware in active use that can't handle JavaScript. >> WebTV >> Lots of public internet kiosks > > I don't think I've seen a kiosk in the past 2 years that, if it allowed > public browsing, didn't allow javascript. The only time it appears to > be non-functioning is in 'locked down' kiosks, and at that point I can't > tell if javascript is 'disabled' or if the designers simply didn't use > it (moot point at that stage anyway). In the past year, I've run into such kiosks at a Spanish train station, a Malaysian shopping mall, and at airports all over the world where JavaScript wasn't supported (this having stuck in my mind because the webmail gateway I was using at the time made life difficult in these cases). Once again, whatever the explanation, they still exist aplenty. >> I've done consulting in bank and government offices where application >> proxies filtered out JavaScript. Given its frequent role as an attack >> vector, this struck me as only the tiniest bit paranoid. > > > More than a tiny bit, imo. Any 'attack' worth its salt has been through > outlook - people should spend more time filtering email with VB > attachments than "javascript" in html pages. Trust me, the organizations that filter JavaScript do not have Outlook on their desktop. If you're going to be serious about security, no point being half-assed about it. > I was not advocating using JS exclusively to the point of not working > without it, but it seemed the advice was 'don't use it at all'. That's > what I was getting from it before. My advice was not to create a situation where JavaScript was the only way to navigate the site. I stand by that. > MSDN, on the other hand, pretty much demands "latest IE" only or else > nothing works - their prerogative to do so, I guess. Sure, that's pretty much neither here not there. MSDN in this context is a site for people who develop for IE, not for the web. I'm sure that if there's an International JavaScript Federation, they use JavaScript by the bucketfull too. That's no more an indication of best practices than sampling the corporate parking lot at Ford Motors to determine the best car to drive. miguel -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
