W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: to js or not to js?

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:15:08 -0000
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <b0gi4m$hvb$1@main.gmane.org>


"Julian Voelcker" <asp@tvw.net> wrote in message
news:VA.0000062a.0605e1fe@tvw.net...
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:48:25 -0000, Jim Ley wrote:
> > but equally you have the fact that it's getting increasingly easy to
disable
> > javascript on a per function/method basis, so it's not now (not that
it's
> > ever been for clueful developers) possible to say "enable javascript"
and
> > this will work.  It's enable javascript configured in a certain way, and
as
> > long as there aren't any javascript bugs we're okay.
>
> To be honest, I didn't realise that you could change the js settings on a
per
> function basis.  Whilst it sounds like a good idea, it also seems like a
> recipe for disaster and something that no developer on earth would be able
to
> handle unless they dropped js altogether, which I don't see happening.

The usenet group comp.lang.javascript contains continous discussion on
approaches to it, which work whilst still allowing complete use of
javascript, seen as any professional javascript user should be aware of such
techniques, I can't agree that the "it's impossible" defense a good one.
Looking out for posts by Richard Cornford is often especially instructive.

> > I imagine what you're actually saying is, use IE (and maybe mozilla) in
> > default configuration with javascript enabled and it will work.  If I
turn
> > up with my javascript enabled Netrik or Pogo it'll likely just error, or
if
> > I disable a few functions in IE (like .open() .focus() etc.) it'll also
not
> > work.
>
> I don't think developers should take the blame if you get a lot of js
errors
> because you either use a browser that doesn't fully support javascript or
you
> start limiting the support.

I do, and more importantly so does the WCAG guidelines, in any case to use
javascript usefully in webpages, you have to use object models, which have
never been stantardised, so it's difficult to see what defense the author
might use, to justify the script.  In any case your rebuttal doesn't mention
Netrik or Pogo, both of which have compliant ECMAScript support.

Jim.
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 05:15:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT