Hi.
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:30:06PM -0000, Micah Cowan wrote:
>
> Yes; but in many cases, incomplete JavaScript support can be worse than
> none at all, for browsing the web. That's not usually the case for web
> spiders.
>
> For instance, sites that have both JavaScript and non-script support
> often have a conditional block which says "if they have JavaScript, then
> do this, if not, then do this" (<script>, <noscript>). The problem is
> that if full support for ECMAScript and/or mainstream JavaScript
> constructs is not available, the <script> block may fail to work, and
> the <noscript> block won't be evaluated (since it's presumed that you
> have JavaScript). Often, feature-tests are performed in well-written
> JavaScript, but few indeed perform feature-tests of anything that's
> known to be available in all mainstream browsers, and feature-tests may
> not be available for everything, anyway. So it could be unwise to enable
> JavaScript by default.
>
> If the elinks support for JavaScript can be enabled with a flag, and
> left disabled by default, then I suppose it might be alright to include
> the support in the default build, though.
>
> This is, of course, only my 2ยข, and I am not the one who will be making
> decisions on this... that would probably be Martin Pitt or Peter Gervai,
> or some other MOTU at least.
>
I just managed to build elinks with javascript support on my Debian Sid
box. You can build elinks with javascript support and then disable it
in the option manager.
Kenny
--
javascript support is disabled.
https://launchpad.net/bugs/64031
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
