FAQ Topic - How can I prevent access to a web page by using javascript? (2010-05-09)
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: THE LAST ONLINE CASINO SECURITY LINE
Next: FAQ Topic - How can I prevent access to a web page by using javascript?(2010-05-09)
From: David Mark on 16 May 2010 10:52 Johannes Baagoe wrote: > VK : >> Johannes Baagoe : >>> VK : >>>> Use type="text/javascript" only > >>> I shall bear it in mind if and when I intend to accommodate >>> non-conforming browsers. > >> Other words if ever decide to accommodate your solutions for more >> that 40%-45% of your Web visitors... > > I cannot imagine a visitor who has no standard-conforming browser > and who would still be interested in anything I have to say. > >> I don't think it's a suitable approach for c.l.j. Browser-specific >> tech forums in their intranet sections are definitely the choice to >> post such solutions. > > I would argue exactly the contrary: comp.lang.javascript is about the > computer language javascript, which has nothing at all to do at with > browser-scripting except for a historical accident. Questions about > workarounds for buggy browsers should be discussed in the appropriate > vendors' forums. (Or, at the very least, be appropriately tagged in > the subject line.) No, this is browser scripting central. That's what most JS is targeted at. It's no accident. ;) > >> I am the service customer you are benefiting from: either by having >> your code QA'ed or by having my proven wrong and stupid. You are the >> service provider - and in order to get "paid" you gonna do what I >> want, and if I don't give a damn if the original coding is allowed >> or not - you'll have to do the same. Or no contract. :-) > > If anything, it is the other way round - you offer a quality control > service I might be interested in. If serious, you should take the > job as it is, without demanding arbitrary alterations to suit your > habits. Just as I would if you decided to hire me as consultant. > > But no contract. My opinion about your competence in cryptology was > made the moment you posted your nonsense about Shannon's Clairvoyant. Don't encourage VK. Just ignore him (her?) > > On the other hand, *you* asserted repeatedly that something is > impossible. Everybody who took the trouble to actually check came to > the opposite conclusion. The reflex of declaring it impossible (which > I shared, too, before Stockton first, and then Jorge made me rethink) > comes from considering only the terrible solutions that are implicitly, > but not explicitly, assumed in the FAQ, viz. obfuscating a password. > My solution does nothing of the kind. > > I have now explained that three times. If you still do not want to > check and take the last chance of a graceful retreat, I shall not > additionally rewrite my page according to your whims to make you do > so. After all, the way you manage your reputation is your own concern. > VK's reputation is long-established (a nut-case).
From: VK on 16 May 2010 11:55 > >>> VK : > >>> Use type="text/javascript" only > >> Johannes Baagoe : > >> I shall bear it in mind if and when I intend to accommodate > >> non-conforming browsers. > > VK : > > Other words if ever decide to accommodate your solutions for more > > that 40%-45% of your Web visitors... > Johannes Baagoe : > I cannot imagine a visitor who has no standard-conforming browser > and who would still be interested in anything I have to say. So you have nothing interesting to say or to propose to the Web... That's a little bit sorry but totally acceptable. Just don't position it as a right and the only right state for a Web developer. > > VK : > > I don't think it's a suitable approach for c.l.j. Browser-specific > > tech forums in their intranet sections are definitely the choice to > > post such solutions. > Johannes Baagoe : > I would argue exactly the contrary: comp.lang.javascript is about the > computer language javascript, which has nothing at all to do at with > browser-scripting except for a historical accident. Questions about > workarounds for buggy browsers should be discussed in the appropriate > vendors' forums. (Or, at the very least, be appropriately tagged in > the subject line.) And here you are deeply wrong. First of all there is a deepest difference between i) Javascript implementation peculiarities - which are in total no bigger that C / C++ implementation peculiarities - and ii) DOM interface differences - which are nearly endless. Secondly the only source of existence of this newsgroup instead of some fit all microsoft.public.scripting.jscript etc. is that endless legions of post-war developers - including your humble servant - kept accommodating all different DOM interfaces in a single solution so letting weak to get stronger and letting silly ones to eventually abandon their silliness without loosing the market completely. > If anything, it is the other way round - you offer a quality control > service I might be interested in. If serious, you should take the > job as it is, without demanding arbitrary alterations to suit your > habits. Just as I would if you decided to hire me as consultant. To take your proposal into consideration I am at the very least entitled to demand that it would work for the majority of Web users. By that I mean that out of 1000 visitors at least 500 can have *any* experience out of your solutions, positive or negative. If you consider this requirement as being overly strict then again you have chosen a wrong NG to post your ideas. > I have now explained that three times. If you still do not want to > check and take the last chance of a graceful retreat, I shall not > additionally rewrite my page according to your whims to make you do > so. After all, the way you manage your reputation is your own concern. Very true. And if I decide to go over the troubles explaining why adding intermediary wheels C, D, E, F and by changing their shape to another one still doesn't make wheel A turning wheel B and wheel B turning wheel A - if I decide so I am entitled to see all wheels to examine to be clean and the area swiped nicely.
From: VK on 16 May 2010 12:11 On May 16, 6:52 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Don't encourage VK. Just ignore him (her?) > VK's reputation is long-established (a nut-case). THE VISCOUNT: No one? But wait! I'll treat him to. . .one of my quips!. . .See here!. . . (He goes up to Cyrano, who is watching him, and with a conceited air): Sir, your nose is. . .hmm. . .it is. . .very big! CYRANO (gravely): Very! THE VISCOUNT (laughing): Ha! CYRANO (imperturbably): Is that all?. . . THE VISCOUNT: What do you mean? CYRANO: Ah no! young blade! That was a trifle short! You might have said at least a hundred things By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . . Aggressive: 'Sir, if I had such a nose I'd amputate it!' Friendly: 'When you sup It must annoy you, dipping in your cup; You need a drinking-bowl of special shape!' Descriptive: ''Tis a rock!. . .a peak!. . .a cape! <...> http://pd.sparknotes.com/lit/cyrano/section5.html // English http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Cyrano_de_Bergerac_%28Rostand%29#Sc.C3.A8ne_IV // original français
From: Johannes Baagoe on 16 May 2010 12:47 David Mark : > Johannes Baagoe : >> VK : >>> I don't think it's a suitable approach for c.l.j. Browser-specific >>> tech forums in their intranet sections are definitely the choice >>> to post such solutions. >> I would argue exactly the contrary: comp.lang.javascript is about >> the computer language javascript, which has nothing at all to do at >> with browser-scripting except for a historical accident. Questions >> about workarounds for buggy browsers should be discussed in the >> appropriate vendors' forums. (Or, at the very least, be appropriately >> tagged in the subject line.) > No, this is browser scripting central. That's what most JS is > targeted at. It's no accident. ;) I quite agree both that most uses of javascript are in browsers and that most browser-scripting is done in javascript. However, this is merely an accident of history - it was proposed in Netscape, and it caught on. There is no feature of javascript, and even less of the formal specifications of ECMAScript, that make that connexion *essential*. You can do other things with ECMAScript than browser applications, and you can do browser applications with other scripting languages. Actually, for javascript to work in browsers at all, you need the DOM, which has nothing to do with ES /per se/. I happen to be interested in javascript, or ECMAScript, as a *programming language*, from a rather philosophical point of view. I fully understand that most people have more concrete concerns. But I would appreciate if there were some means, say standard tags in the subject line, that would mark threads about IE's bugs, the incompetence of library authors and even the DOM as being about something else than the computer language javascript. -- Johannes
From: David Mark on 16 May 2010 22:40
VK wrote: > On May 16, 6:52 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Don't encourage VK. Just ignore him (her?) > >> VK's reputation is long-established (a nut-case). > > THE VISCOUNT: > No one? But wait! > I'll treat him to. . .one of my quips!. . .See here!. . . > (He goes up to Cyrano, who is watching him, and with a conceited air): > Sir, your nose is. . .hmm. . .it is. . .very big! > CYRANO (gravely): > Very! > THE VISCOUNT (laughing): > Ha! > CYRANO (imperturbably): > Is that all?. . . > THE VISCOUNT: > What do you mean? > CYRANO: > Ah no! young blade! That was a trifle short! > You might have said at least a hundred things > By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . . > Aggressive: 'Sir, if I had such a nose > I'd amputate it!' Friendly: 'When you sup > It must annoy you, dipping in your cup; > You need a drinking-bowl of special shape!' > Descriptive: ''Tis a rock!. . .a peak!. . .a cape! > <...> > > http://pd.sparknotes.com/lit/cyrano/section5.html // English > > http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Cyrano_de_Bergerac_%28Rostand%29#Sc.C3.A8ne_IV > // original fran�ais Told you so. ;) |