Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Michael would not implement [javascript compatibility] into Arachne,
if [it] were sooo bad)
SH If web-site developers would simply desist from using Java-Script or
SH Java in their web-pages, then no browser developer would have to
SH
On Fri, 12 May 2000 09:51:04 +0200 (CEST), Richard Menedetter) wrote:
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Michael would not implement [javascript compatibility] into Arachne,
if [it] were sooo bad)
SH If web-site developers would simply desist from using Java-Script or
SH
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SH Nearly everyone agreed that smallpox was bad.
And where is the parallel to JS ??
SH Nearly everyone agreed that smallpox was bad
SH Nearly everyone can agree that Java Script,
You have forgotten on this list
Tha average user,
On Thu, 11 May 2000 13:23:27 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
Hi
(Michael would not implement [javascript compatibility] into
Arachne, if [it] were sooo bad)
If web-site developers would simply desist from using Java-Script or Java
in their web-pages, then no
My point on standard HTML and the upcoming XML was that the WWW should be for
information rather than glitz. Maybe the webmasters who create those fancy
image-laden pages have a fast Pentium or Athlon with a LAN connection? All
those images on ZDNet fall on blind eyes when I use Lynx to speed
On Thu, 04 May 2000 18:07:27 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
SH Nearly everyone agreed that smallpox was bad.
And where is the parallel to JS ??
Nearly everyone agreed that smallpox was bad, except for those who could
see its usefulness for conducting genocide
On Thu, 04 May 2000 18:20:22 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
snip
SH then Bill Gates should have taken the same consideration he does with
SH anything else invented by Netscape. He should have designed his
SH operating system and browser to be incompatible with
I'm a bit confused. Therefore I should put my foot in my mouth, right?
On Sun, 7 May 2000 10:39:17 -0700, Bob Buckland ?:-\) wrote:
Hmmm, seeing Arachne have XML/XSL/XSLT capabilities would be
verrry, interesting, [right after Usenet news ;) and secure protocol
support].
Since
Hi L.D.,
Geez, wasn't aiming to start a frenzy :)
After all, it's all just software eh g
Lest we forget, I'm still a big supporter of Arachne. It just
is a bit surreal (since folks have posted here on this list
what level of hits Arachne represents on many sites) to sometimes
think the
Clarence wrote:
Well, as you know I use NS2.02 which does support EARLY javascript.
The problems come when js is enabled and stuff it doesn't recognize
(correct or otherwise) comes along.
Ok, but if the author cares about how the JS is made it will NOT be parsed
in a JS 1.0 capable browser. Ex:
Sam Heywood wrote:
I think you should go back to your space capsule
and shuttle off.
Bernie replied:
Darn, you've discovered my secret! Turning to the left "They are on to us
guys - we need to abort the invasion!" ;-)
No, no, no. don't abort. Just post-pone it for a little while.
Congratulations, Sam Heywood, on taking a stand against Javascript! If the
purpose of the Internet, including the WWW, is to provide information rather
than glitz, we need less bloatware, not more. It reaches a stage where I think
we were better off with Gopher. With Javascript, Java,
Ricsi wrote:
B SCRIPT
B document.writeln('Hello World!')
B /SCRIPT
I thought that it is MANDATory to write scripts as COMMENTS !!!
So that they are ignored by pre JS/JS disabled browsers !
No, but the JS isn't 100% correct since I don't specify that it's
JavaScript (might make problems for
Bernie wrote:
Clarence wrote:
And you very definitely forgot 2d:
They know about JS and when turned on interpret SOME of it,
ignore some of it, and CRASH on some of it !!
I guess such a browser can exist - but I haven't used one that "crashes" if
the JS is correct.
Well, as you know
Hi
Roger Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RT I have seen some pages written with the terms, "cs" and "css,"
RT (Coffeescript?) that also seem to give trouble.
Cascading Style Sheets ... an official standard of the W3C.
(the commitee that 'makes' HTML)
I don't know much about it, but it should
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can't go around putting our heads in the sand because the
majority are doing something we can't cope with.
SH Agreed. We should not put our heads in the sand. The best way to
SH cope with a problem is to discover its cause and
Hi
Bernie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
B 1. They don't know about JS (pre-JS browsers)
B 2. They know about JS
B a. JS on - JS is interpreted
B b. JS off - Ignores JS
B c. otherwise ignores JS
B And Arachne tries to fit into 2c. If the browser doesn't know about JS
B a script like this:
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SH but it is a Gate$ware crasher as well.
?? JavaScript was invented by Netscape Corporation
(it was named LiveScript, and because of some extremely silly
considerations was renamed to JavaScript)
Java is a platform _INDEPENDANT_ (eg the
On 3 May 00 at 22:31, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
I cannot understand why any business would want to design a web-site that is
inaccessible to the average potential customer. I cannot understand why
they would want to be unreachable by any potential customer. You would
think that they would want
The latest PC Magazine has a feature on making a "great web site." It
includes all the glitter and glamor that is unnecessary. I sent the
following e-mail to them:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-
For a web site to be "great," it must:
1. First and foremost, be browser neutral, unless the
Hi Roger,
Thank's for taking the time to express your
thoughts to PC Magazine. I fully concur!
Eric
Roger Turk wrote:
The latest PC Magazine has a feature on making a "great web site." It
includes all the glitter and glamor that is unnecessary. I sent the
following e-mail to
Clarence wrote:
And you very definitely forgot 2d:
They know about JS and when turned on interpret SOME of it,
ignore some of it, and CRASH on some of it !!
I guess such a browser can exist - but I haven't used one that "crashes" if
the JS is correct.
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/ DOS
Ricsi wrote:
B But if pages could be accesible even without JavaScript, Java, CSS and
B Shockwave I think we all would be alot happier.
I agree ... 100%
But if done intelligently than you can benefit if these additions are
installed, and if your browser doesn't support it/or if they are
Sam Heywood wrote:
No, because I was speaking of a couple of specific narrowly categorized
things to which I have a particular aversion because they are all bad,
IMHO.
I really can't see a diffrence between computers and "HTML enhancers".
I think you should go back to your space capsule
and
Hello Arachnids:
Like everyone else on this list, I too have a problem with Java script.
I have a major problem with it because, not only is it not compliant
with Arachne, but it is a Gate$ware crasher as well. With Arachne it
doesn't perform as badly as it does on Gate$ware because Arachne is
Richard Menedetter wrote:
Don't you mean Java ??
I have never heared of BSODs because of JavaScript.
[...]
The crappy design of windows (especially 9x) has nothing to do with your
browser.
Actually.. I remember quite afew sites that any visit in them
with JavaScript could collaps windows
RMSH I have a major problem with it because, not only is it not compliant
RMSH with Arachne,
RMit's the other way round ...
RM_Arachne_ is not compliant with JS
RMSH The problem with Java script would come to an end and web-site
RMSH developers would immediately abandon it if all
Sam Heywood wrote:
You would think that Bill Gates would do something about the problem and
train his Window$ware to simply ignore Java script. The problem with
Java script would come to an end
Even better phrasing (IMHO):
"You would think that Bill Gates would so something about the problem
On Wed, 03 May 2000 14:47:13 -000, Mike Millen wrote:
We can't go around putting our heads in the sand because the majority
are doing something we can't cope with.
Agreed. We should not put our heads in the sand. The best way to cope
with a problem is to discover its cause and eradicate it.
Hi
Bernie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
B "You would think that Bill Gates would so something about the problem
B and require the people working for him to be litterate enough to read
B the specifications
Hmm ... do we speak about the SAME Bill Gates ???
You know the story, that he invented a
Knowing nothing about javascript, and having heard about a M$ version of it
that is not 100% compatible with js, I went to M$'s web site the other day
and did a search on "javascript." I didn't have time to study the material
in depth, but I recall some examples of how js is supposed to be
Having spent a lot of time recently looking at pages at the code
generating them, I think I can tell you why "everyone" is using js.
If you don't know snit about HTML, but if you can get to a site and
download, you can grab off *hundreds* of javascript templates.
Biggest problem I've seen is
On Wed, 3 May 2000 19:45:24 +0200 (MET DST), Bernie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realize that there are technical differences between Java Script and Java,
but because of my well-founded prejudices in this regard, I will stereotype
all of the above as bad. When you hold a prejudice against an
ED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03 May 2000 19:28
Subject: Re: Why Java script?
Knowing nothing about javascript, and having heard about a M$ version of it
that is not 100% compatible with js, I went to M$'s web site the other day
and did a search on "javascript." I didn't have time to stud
Bernie wrote:
Hmm IMHO the categories are:
1. They don't know about JS (pre-JS browsers)
2. They know about JS
a. JS on - JS is interpreted
b. JS off - Ignores JS
c. otherwise ignores JS
And you very definitely forgot 2d:
They know about JS and when turned on interpret SOME of
On 3 May 00 at 14:53, Or Botton wrote:
Actually.. I remember quite afew sites that any visit in them
with JavaScript could collaps windows completly.
Always in the same point, always with that same script. Thats
not only because of the Windows crappy design - its also because
of the browser
On Wed, 3 May 2000 19:16:09, Dale Mentzer wrote:
On 3 May 00 at 14:53, Or Botton wrote:
snip
Yes, I agree. I went to www.motorola.com looking for a user manual
snipped all about the problems encountered on the site due to Java Script
I cannot understand why any business would want to
37 matches
Mail list logo
