On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:55:18 +0400, Volodya wrote:
> On 18.10.2010 23:29, Ray Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:11 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> It would be really helpful if people could spend a little time to
> >> understand what is being debated before they start ranting.
> >
> > Try again. I subscribed to this list last....May? I have received
> > perhaps a half dozen messages since then until this last week.
> > Suddenly I have 50 messages some dating back to June and July. The
> > first message I received in the bunch was the straw poll on
> > javascript. Since then I have carefully read every message I have
> > received. There has been very little discussion as to why js is
> > needed, or I am missing a bunch of messages, or the discussion
> > seriously needs to be brought down to a level that I can
> > understand. So don't tell me to understand before I start ranting
> > if you are not part of the solution of helping me understand. Until
> > I understand, my vote still stands at no.
> You misunderstood the poll question. Nobody is suggesting that
> freesites should be allowed to have JS in them, but rather Freenet's
> own web proxy would have JS in the interface. That JS would only be
> written by those same developers who today write Java code for
> Freenet already.

We know, but it's still asking for "oops"es as mentioned earlier. Who
knows how each JavaScript implementation handles it's caches and
temporary stuff. Who knows how other malicious sites will be able to
manage to access this stuff. (Nobody now, probably, but I think it's
perfectly possible that it will happen.)

Also, "pretty" is very subjective. I, for one, find JavaScript stuff
generally repulsive. (Animations and anything "dynamic".) And
that's assuming the stuff works in the first place--many times it
doesn't--probably due to a broken or sloppy implementation. Freenet's
"UI" is mainly supposed to be the actual Freesites. The purpose of all
this potential scripting is simply to make newbies aware that pictures
(and less popular freesites) take a while to load. Is a complete new
framework really necessary to simply let newbies know things are still
being fetched in the background? Is a simple html self-refreshing page,
with a list of freesite-fetches in progress not good enough?

If more ambitious UI features are planned, I would still avoid using
JavaScript. I would use GTK or something actually designed for
applications. Not a flaky scripting-hack of webpages which were never
designed to behave like apps in the first place.
Support mailing list
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to