javascript can't change anything server-side either... not all by itself anyway.akimm wrote:but i'm saying, thats not to say you can then add it to my server. Thereby changing my sites HTML elements.
Opinion poll.
Moderator: General Moderators
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Frappr had security bugs due to XmlHttp and JavaScript... That would be a good reason to meEverah wrote:Dude, frappr sucks without Javascript. It is nasty, seriously.I think most fears stems back from JS being a client side utility that does stuff on the client. It may go way back to the days of the great cookie scare, but I would guess it has something to do with people being feaked out about things happening on their machine because a website deep in cyberland wanted it to happen that way.Burrito wrote:I don't understand people's fear of JS....it seems totally unfounded to me. What is it about JS that pushes people off? Is it just that it's something new and unknown to them? Is it that it can be someone erratic in different browsers? What is it that scares them away?
eratic in different browser? I consider that as an understatementBurrito wrote:I don't understand people's fear of JS....it seems totally unfounded to me. What is it about JS that pushes people off? Is it just that it's something new and unknown to them? Is it that it can be someone erratic in different browsers? What is it that scares them away?
I'm scared when i look back at the ways people have tried to overcome rendering differences between versions of Internet Explorer, Gecko and Opera last couple of years (and they didn't know/care that html is 'rendered' completely different on a character based terminal :p)... I don't want to experience the same with even more differences in the existing ecma implementations....
I know many good, even kick-arse developers that don't have the faintest idea about the existence of AJAX.... But that's probably because they don't target the web...ole wrote: AJAX is important. I don't think it can be ignored. Any good developer should be conversant in AJAX (not me yet, I've only tickered) but I don't expect every new website to use AJAX, ever.
- feyd
- Neighborhood Spidermoddy
- Posts: 31559
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
- Location: Bothell, Washington, USA
un‧couth /ʌnˈkuθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-kooth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA PronunciationThe Ninja Space Goat wrote:what does uncouth mean?
–adjective
1. awkward, clumsy, or unmannerly: uncouth behavior; an uncouth relative who embarrasses the family.
2. strange and ungraceful in appearance or form.
3. unusual or strange.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE uncūth (see un-1, couth2); c. D onkond]
—Related forms
un‧couth‧ly, adverb
un‧couth‧ness, noun
—Synonyms 1. discourteous, rude, uncivil. See boorish. 3. odd, unfamiliar.
—Antonyms 1. courteous.
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Very nice. I thought to myself once, 'I bet feyd can't double as a dictionary'. I guess I was wrong.feyd wrote:un‧couth /ʌnˈkuθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-kooth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA PronunciationThe Ninja Space Goat wrote:what does uncouth mean?
–adjective
1. awkward, clumsy, or unmannerly: uncouth behavior; an uncouth relative who embarrasses the family.
2. strange and ungraceful in appearance or form.
3. unusual or strange.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE uncūth (see un-1, couth2); c. D onkond]
—Related forms
un‧couth‧ly, adverb
un‧couth‧ness, noun
—Synonyms 1. discourteous, rude, uncivil. See boorish. 3. odd, unfamiliar.
—Antonyms 1. courteous.