On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Trevor Phillips
trevor.phill...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Toby Corkindale
toby.corkind...@strategicdata.com.au wrote:
But what happens when your site gets spidered by a search engine, that
follows all links?
Whoops.
There's a
* On Wed, Jan 21 2009, Dave Howorth wrote:
Paul Falbe wrote:
That works thank you very much. Don't know how many google searchs I did
trying to find that out!
Rodrigo-51 wrote:
Paul, how about a javascript confirm() box?
... and if the user has Javascript disabled?
noscriptPlease
Kieren Diment wrote:
Yeah, 98% of your browsers have javascript enabled and a big chunk of
the remainder are bots ...
On the other hand you might want a non-javascript undo option at the
other end if you go that route.
Duh, I should know this, but do screen readers support JavaScript?
Kieren Diment wrote:
Yeah, 98% of your browsers have javascript enabled and a big chunk of
the remainder are bots ...
On the other hand you might want a non-javascript undo option at the
other end if you go that route.
Oh, and watch out for a Classic Error I saw in someone's code a little
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Toby Corkindale
toby.corkind...@strategicdata.com.au wrote:
But what happens when your site gets spidered by a search engine, that
follows all links?
Whoops.
There's a good reason state-modification-actions should be POST (or rather,
non-GET, if you want to
Trevor Phillips wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Toby Corkindale
toby.corkind...@strategicdata.com.au wrote:
But what happens when your site gets spidered by a search engine, that
follows all links?
Whoops.
There's a good reason state-modification-actions should be POST (or rather,
From: Richard Siddall richard.sidd...@elirion.net
Kieren Diment wrote:
Yeah, 98% of your browsers have javascript enabled and a big chunk of
the remainder are bots ...
On the other hand you might want a non-javascript undo option at the
other end if you go that route.
Duh, I should
