On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:10:55 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:55:18 +0400, Volodya wrote: > > 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.)
I second this. > Also, "pretty" is very subjective. ... > 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. ... Not a flaky scripting-hack of webpages which were never > designed to behave like apps in the first place. And this, too. Personally, I never had a problem using freenets interface. IMHO, making it "more user friendly" targets the wrong audience - all those IT-handicapped dumba**** who barely can switch their PC on/off. They wouldn't understand .. - what freenet is in general (shows in some posts on this list every couple of weeks..) - why Js is allowed and deemed "perfectly *cough* save" for freenet, when you can read everywhere that JS is so dangerous (IF they do read such things at all ... ) - why the freepages still look so butt-ugly, when they could use nifty JS navigation bars (told you they won't see the difference; => see that recent post which didn't differentiate between Java and JS ...) .. etc... You know what? Why don't you do a freenet-browser in Java ?!? Than there's anything you want - nice GUI, and complete control 'bout what freesites can use/do. Oh, and DAUs (dumb a** users) don't have to point their browsers at 127.0.0.1:8888, what is way to difficult for them to understand anyway. yours A. _______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
