|
Posted by Ed Mullen on 12/22/06 23:46
dorayme wrote:
> In article <2lsmo2h2juj4b8n1u83md3n2vmkil3pfsf@4ax.com>,
> Ed Seedhouse <eseedhouse@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:12:44 +1100, dorayme
>> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> Considering that you must send the actual html source for the page to be
>>>> displayed at all, and that the display device is normally a fairly high
>>>> powered computer, the idea strikes me as both futile and silly.
>>> It would be like company secrets and would doubtless benefit some
>>> of those who did it. Not sure the description of silly or futile
>>> is apt.
>> It is clearly futile since you can't send someone unencrypted plain text
>> and expect that they won't be able to look at it. And you must
>> necessarily do so if you want someone to look at your web page. Silly is
>> a value judgement I admit, but I stand by it. I think it's silly to
>> want something that is self contradictory.
>
> This just looks plain like missing the point. No sane person is
> going to try to publish a web page while trying to hide it too.
> But someone might want to hide the markup, the tags, the css
> sheet etc.
This pre-supposes that Web pages are only published by sane persons. I
find that to be a wholey falacious presumption. Hey, there are an awful
lotta nuts out there! And they are publishing pages at an alarming rate!!!
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|