Ivaylo Valkov writes:
> iva...@e-valkov.org writes:
>
>> It disables/enables JavaScript more easily than the
>> internal option.
>
> Yet no code available from my working copy. Might happen this week.
There are two Git repository [1] at Gitorious that hold the latest sources
and the website. I h
Luckily Ubuntu won't be using GNOME 3.8 for a while (Ubuntu 13.04 will
apparently use 3.6 - which will probably be the base of Trisquel 7.0).
Good news about your extension. I look forward to using it. :)
Ivaylo Valkov writes:
> iva...@e-valkov.org writes:
>> (Yes, yes the website and the bug tracker as well need fixes, I
>> know. ;) Lack of time.)
> Fey issues were submitted by me, that should be fixed before 0.3 is
> released.
Funny, the typo means completely different thing. Read as "fe*w*".
iva...@e-valkov.org writes:
> It disables/enables JavaScript more easily than the
> internal option. [1]
>
> (Yes, yes the website and the bug tracker as well need fixes, I
> know. ;) Lack of time.)
>
> http://e-valkov.org/epiphany-extensions/js-switch-off/
The website is fixed for all resolution
A benefit of jQuery is due to its popularity on CDNs and their caching, more
often than not, you will be loading a cached version instead of pulling from
their servers every time. I know that the googleapis CDN can cache a jQuery
script for a year if a specific version is given. The initial d
В 21:15 +0100 на 01.11.2012 (чт), tegskywal...@hotmail.com написа:
> It is true that a lot of JavaScript code is proprietary to the parent site,
> don't lump jQuery into the same category.
Where did you read that or how did you imagined it? I've said twice I am
excluding free software JavaScrip
It is true that a lot of JavaScript code is proprietary to the parent site,
don't lump jQuery into the same category. While it does have copyright tied
to a non profit foundation (like the FSF), the permissive MIT license it has
will let you do what you want. The source is fully open and free
В 16:23 +0100 на 31.10.2012 (ср), tegskywal...@hotmail.com написа:
> Spare the lecture.
I wasn't really lecturing. You asked some questions I've answered them
from my perspective.
> what is the REAL issue at hand?
Increasingly large programs written in JavaScript. In addition:
* those JavaSc
:) Of course. I think anything to encourage companies / organizations /
individuals to fix issues is a good thing!
> Turning off JavaScript entirely? I remember how websites were in 1996/1997
and I really don't want to return to those archaic dark ages.
This website works fine without JS, and it doesn't look like it comes from
1996/1997. In terms of style, CSS has modernised the web.
Spare the lecture.
All I was saying is that a benefit of JavaScript is the universal support of
it. Much like when you go to a web site and every browser supports JPEG, PNG,
and CSS. While it is true that people can abuse JavaScript and it is even
worse to check the code when it is minified
Of course - I don't use Facebook and I encourage others to give it up as
well.
But with JavaScript it's quite easy for any website to misuse JS. For any
website which people reveal themselves on, that's potentially problematic.
There is a really easy solution to facebook and it is to not use it. If
someone sends you a link you tell them why you don't use it.
> extensions like LibreJS need to be better for the ideology to succeed.
Perhaps it is. :-) I haven't tried tried LibreJS because I'm used to having
JS enabled entirely (and I have for the past year).
To elaborate on why I dislike JavaScript a little more though:
As a perfect example, Facebo
В 05:02 +0100 на 31.10.2012 (ср), tegskywal...@hotmail.com написа:
> I still don't see the point in disabling JavaScript as it would break most
> sites.
Because it gives control to the user to browse however he/she wants. One
of the best practises in making websites is to make it so that it coul
I still don't see the point in disabling JavaScript as it would break most
sites. JavaScript is a universal language supported in all browsers and even
the archaic IE6 can play nice with JS frameworks like jQuery.
The hardcore free software guys will do what they want anyways through
extens
> This introduced "bug"/"feature" in Epiphany migh be the motivation I need
to finally finish the improvements in my Epiphany extension and revive it. It
disables/enables JavaScript more easily than the internal option. [1]
That's excellent - if I decide to use Epiphany/Web at a later date I
Abrowser is a Firefox-based browser create by the Trisquel team xD Creating
one from scratch would mean a lot of work not available right now.
Honestly, I used to like Chrome/Chromium but I don't see any particular
reason to use it. I have been using Midori and it works just as well. It'd
be cool if Trisquel developed their own browser.
Epiphany is better with HTML5 than Firefox (Abrowser) because of the WebKit.
Just open a youtube video (or an HTML5 Canvas Benchmark) and look at the
differences (visually and also performance) between the two.
But yes it is the only thing where Epiphany is better. Epiphany was made by
the
This introduced "bug"/"feature" in Epiphany migh be the motivation I need to
finally finish the improvements in my Epiphany extension and revive it. It
disables/enables JavaScript more easily than the internal option. [1]
The publicly released version more than a year ago does not support 3.x
Even if in your eyes these browsers are better, there are still people out
there that might want to use Epiphany.
At one point Epiphany was the only sane light browser option.
Replacing it might not be an option for every user for various reasons.
Doesn't matter as Abrowser (Firefox), Chromium, and Midori are better
browsers with the option to disable JavaScript there. Plus there are the
extensions for the Firefox and Chromium based browsers that let you do what
you want with them.
Epiphany is a wannabe browser.
>My opinion is that web browsers should do the reverse: make JS disabled by
default.
Now this would be wonderful! So many pages misuse JS.
Epiphany is now called "Web" for some reason. I'm guessing the developers
don't want to confuse new users with lots of different settings, so any
"advanced" setting in their view (including changing the user agent which is
essential since Web isn't a popular browser and thus some websites are
Thanks for your reply, that's interesting information.
Just to clarify my original post (for anyone reading), I don't hate GNOME or
anything and I don't mind their software (which comes with freedom), but I
don't support removing this option in Epiphany. I don't use Epiphany but a
lot of di
> Sources:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685393
> http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/core/3.7/3.7.1/NEWS
Browsers enable JS by default -> sites require it -> browser developers
think disabling JS will confuse users; I don't understand the last step,
not knowing people breaking their bro
Sources:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685393
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/core/3.7/3.7.1/NEWS
Epiphany 3.7 will be removing the option to disable JavaScript. Only users in
the know-how will be able to disable it, via GSettings.
The continuing trend that I've noticed is that mo
28 matches
Mail list logo
