 | | Re: Unviewable page, useless warning (Was: UCS TIE Crawler) —Jeremy H. Sproat
| | | | (...) *shrug* Until four things happen: (1) Javascript becomes less of a security/stability risk, and (2) ECMA officially becomes an integral part of the HTML standard, and (3) Microsoft and Mozilla and whoever else can agree on a common DOM, and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Unviewable page, useless warning (Was: UCS TIE Crawler) —William R. Ward
| | | | | (...) It hasn't been a risk for a long time. Some early browsers had Javascript security risks, but they were fixed years ago. It's nothing like the ActiveX risks in MSIE - but luckily few sites use ActiveX, so that's safe to turn off (if you must (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Unviewable page, useless warning (Was: UCS TIE Crawler) —David Eaton
| | | | | | (...) I checked stats on my site (just my stuff, since the site actually has some more techhie content elsewhere)-- about 86% of the last 500K+ hits were MSIE, 12% Netscape/Mozilla. Most of the rest were bots, or things like Scooter, Opera, etc. If (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Unviewable page, useless warning (Was: UCS TIE Crawler) —Jeremy H. Sproat
| | | | | Bill, It's clear that you've made up your mind, as have I. Ok, no biggie, but I can see that our debate is starting to go in circles now. I'm not turning on javascript for the simple reason that I don't need it -- the vast majority of the sites I (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | | |
