Posted by dorayme on 12/22/06 21:28

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.

Plus "silly" is not a value judgement in the way you might be
meaning. At least not in any sense that you need to "stand by" a
judgement in this case. That it is silly for a sane person to
believe in an obvious and open contradiction is a fact!

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]