Posted by Kevin Scholl on 12/23/06 15:22

Harlan Messinger wrote:
> Kevin Scholl wrote:
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>>> substitute for most of the rest. Conversely, many people turn off
>>> Javascript for good reasons, and that doesn't keep most sites from
>>> displaying.
>>
>> Just to satisfy my devil's advocacy, could you provide examples of
>> these so-called "good reasons"? I have yet to see a truly viable "good
>> reason" for turning off Javascript. Most reasons to date involve 1)
>> confusion with Java, 2) some supposed security risk (often ActiveX
>> controls mistaken for JS),
>
> You're confusing "real" with "supposed". As for ActiveX objects, one of
> the things Javascript is used for is to script those objects.

I'm not confusing anything. The problem lies with the ActiveX controls
and the security risk that some of them contain, not with the
Javascript. Javascript is itself inherently secure.

By your reasoning, one could say that a car is a risk. A car in and of
itself is not a risk, being nothing more than a collection of inert
pieces working together a machine. Introduce a faulty driver, and you
now have a risk.

> 3) "somebody told me..." nonsense, or 4) stopping
>> popups. The only one of these with any real merit was 4, but even that
>> is antiquated given the specialized popup blockers in modern browsers.


--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
======================================================

[Back to original message]