Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 08:37:21 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ARRGH Netscape stinks! Message-ID: <3B5AC901.B103BA41@iowna.com> References: <15194.18833.703976.7675@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Meyer wrote: > > Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com> types: > > > Shannon <shannon@widomaker.com> types: > > > > CERT is very correct in recommend these be disabled. Unfortunately there > > > > are some sites I use often that require it. It would be nice if you > > > > could turn scripting off for all but specific sites. > > Really, this isn't a Netscape problem so much as it is a problem > > with the dorks who coded the webpage. HTML has the <NOSCRIPT> tag > > to allow content for browsers that don't understand JavaScript. > > It's really two different problems. One is dorks who write web pages > that assume some specific browser feature is available. The other is > that you want to trust some sites, but not others. Yes, well-written > sites will work whether you have them enabled or not. But there are > some sites you are willing to trust and want the extra functionality > for. Mozilla manages to provide this facility for cookies, so asking > for it for JavaScript isn't completely ludicruous. True. I won't argue that it would be a good feature to have. > > The fact that most website designers don't care isn't Netscape's > > fault. > > They certainly contributed to the problem. They failed to provide > documentation for their HTML extensions suitable for use by > implementors, and their instructions to authors regularly recommended > those extensions without bothering to note that they only worked in > Netscape, or providing instructions on how to write HTML that worked > with things turned off. Given that the first time they put JavaScript > on the page, it broke in their own browser if you had JavaScript > turned off, it's possible they couldn't have provided that information > in the first place. > > Now that they've lost the war for market share, they seem to be better > behaved about such things, but I haven't looked closely. All that is true, and also old information. Anyone that is -still- using that to explain away why their site doesn't work under this or that browser is grasping for lame excuses. I wouldn't say they are better behaved, it's just that the w3c has developed HTML faster than the browsers have been able to stay compliant, thus they are so busy trying to keep up, they haven't really had time to invent new things to break other browsers. > > Personally, I always send a complaint to the webmaster of a site > > if it doesn't display usefully when I have plugins missing/options > > disabled. I figured if everyone who was annoyed by this complained, > > things would change a bit. > > Maybe things are better now, but I quit complaining about bogus HTML > a couple of years ago. I got tired of hearing "It works in Netscape, > and we don't care about anything else" as an answer. Well, if you want a change of pace, start sending complaints again. The response these days is, "upgrade your browser to the most recent version of IE" It's funny that these folks are totally confused when I tell them that IE isn't available for my comptuer. The typical response then is, "Get a new computer then." And my final response to them is, "If you want my business, you'll buy it for me. Otherwise, you just lost a customer." -Bill -- It may be that true happiness is nothing more than the ability to *always* know the right thing to say at the right time, whereas true misery is the state of perpetually saying to oneself, "What I *should* have said was..." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B5AC901.B103BA41>