i'm sorry if i upset you, but please reconsider. i talked about graphics, not javascript, not active-x, not php not vbscript, not coldfusion, not xml+xslt, not flash, not inline-movies, not midi-files, nothing. i know that these do not work (midi is checked in thw warning filter, isn't it?!).
also i personally hate internet sites which you can only use if you've got java and flash installed. javascript is nice and sometimes useful (checikng forms, modifying inputs in forms, setting focus) but not necessary either. if you are so into lynx, then this is all right with me. my freesite consists of three files: activelink, index and dexcription.txt. and ascii-art :D, no framesets, no graphics. i am sure your lynx will not render this site, too. who cares, bad luck. but i'm quite sure even *you* have the opportunity to use a "normal graphic enabled browser such as opera or mozilla". text and graphics are too much state of the art as that we could simply drop graphics. hey, ever heard of the ALT tag? if you want, you can bundle up your html files within this zip/jar/tar archive. the archive system is simply providing the facility to - compress files - make request for 10 files to just 1 request - provide all-or-nothing file bundles (e.g. gfx, themes, archived news, whatever) - maybe these bundles are propagated better than all the single files by themselves >(Have you noticed how >many activelinks actually work on TFE these days? It's a *large* >percentage of them -- and I'm not alone in seeing this. Even if the >index.html behind it isn't retrievable, that activelink sure is.) maybe you could even bundle up the activelink image with your main page, so you can even visit the site when you see the activelink BUT MAKE SURE this technology is not abused! then this startrek site decides to bundle up *everything into a single archive, then visiting TFE, which will fetch the activelink image, will pull the whole site with all divx's through freenet! but i doubt that this huge monster will make it very far. the download time needed for this is too long to not be stopped by the user, so it will never make it very far from the insertion nodes throught freenet. maybe it is possible to implement a "max archive size for archives to be opened for retrieval of embedded file" so you can pull this thing manually by requesting it, but when viewed via fproxy a flag is set to check the archivesize >> because nobody wants to make up a freesite which can compete with "mordern" >> internet sites, which consist of 30+ small graphics for a smooth look, 10+ >> larger logos or banner and 5+ different backgrounds on different pages. > >You're wrong here. Nobody wants to make a "modern" Freenet site >because "modern" web sites are FUCKING UGLY MONSTROSITIES THAT USE >EVIL PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGIES like Javascript, Flash, Java, and >ActiveX. > >And even if the EVILness didn't make you cringe, please remember >that Javascript et al. would trip fproxy's warning filter. > >But maybe I'm some sort of old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud. Go ahead >and design your nauseating, epileptic-seizure-inducing, Windows-only >Freesites. Maybe they will attract a bunch of new Freenet users >or something. Of course, being brain-damaged, they'll only be >capable of running poorly configured transient nodes and they'll >never donate money or code or original content.... > >Or prove me wrong. Design a site that will actually work in any >browser (and I mean *ANY* browser, even Lynx) and demonstrates what >you consider to be "modern" aesthetic principles. Then insert it >into Freenet, and we'll see how well it propagates. If you're right >about how attractive such a site is, then it will be widely propagated >and therefore very easily fetched and seen. (Have you noticed how >many activelinks actually work on TFE these days? It's a *large* >percentage of them -- and I'm not alone in seeing this. Even if the >index.html behind it isn't retrievable, that activelink sure is.) > >If you want some more examples of image-heavy sites that are solidly >reliable in their fetchability, look at any of the Freenet porn >sites, especially "Porno That Works" and "Breezah Sluts" which have >huge numbers of inline images on the front page. Also "Propaganda >Booster", as someone else mentioned, which is not even pornographic. ____________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _______________________________________________ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
