Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 07/15/06 16:03

Neredbojias wrote:
> To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"
> <lws4art@centralva.net> vouchsafed:
>
>>>> I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of
>>>> most of the time, with IMO good reason.
>>> Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue
>>> to do so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make
>>> javascript any less viable a styling method.
>> Yes and companies that artificially extended JavaScript beyond its
>> sandbox to save a buck on tech support and software upgrades and pack
>> is
>> into a OS tools that masquerades as a web browser facilitating such
>> abuse....
>
> No comments on Active-X? That's the real pisser.

DIE DIE DIE! How's that! Actually MS's perversion of JavaScript, JScript
can link in the with COM and do some pretty scary things!

>
>> JavaScript can be a very useful component to a webpage, HTML for
>> structure of content, CSS for presentation, JavaScript for user
>> interaction and events, server-side (Perl, PHP, ASP...) for dynamic
>> content... I'd like to be put back in its box, and if you want to do
>> some system stuff over a network, then require some app be installed
>> and stop doing through my web browser...
>
> I don't think I have any argument over all that. A browser belongs under
> its user's control. I don't like having some idiot doing wierd things via
> my interface, either. However, I do like using j/s to enhance the styling
> and functionality of a page in a constructive way, and that's what I do.
>

Agree, the resizing windows and the hiding of browser components is not
desired, but form element pre-checking and interactive form element not
requiring a server call is an efficient and desirable use.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Back to original message]