Posted by dorayme on 12/23/06 00:02

In article <utednYz6CNj78xHYnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@comcast.com>,
Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:

> 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, I don't presuppose that.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]