[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:53:40 +0300 (MSK)
3-Mar-99 00:37 David Woolley wrote:
> rejecting JS because of the number of JS security holes being
> discovered in IE. (On the other hand I'm actually coding JS
> applications for intranet use, but for sale, not internal use.)
> It might be interesting to note the main uses of JS, in approximate
> reverse order of frequency with which I've encountered them:
> - image buttons that change when the mouse is over them (harmless);
> - text that appears when the mouse is over something else (normally
> marketing prose and therefore ignorable);
> - image maps which directly link to other versions of themselves,
> containing graphic pointers to the current selection, and load the
> real link into a different frame as a JS side effect (show stoppers
> and require extensive frames support to implement well in Lynx, not
> just JS);
> - menus implemented as pulldown lists (navigation stoppers, but probably
> relatively easy to support within the Lynx model);
> - forms validation (generally OK if you can still submit);
I think the last two are of the most demand by the lynx users
since we cannot find a "submit" button otherwise on those pages.
for this (estimated) lower frequency issue.
> - forms submission (I think I've only really found these at Microsoft and
> haven't analysed one in detail, although I think some of the programmers
> where I work who are working more to the official brief may have done
> British Telecom have also produced a page (their domestic packaging of
> ISDN) which consists of three completely blue frames when viewed in IE4
> I never analysed this, but a previous version was of the self referential
> image map kind, as described above.)
>> I use lynx because I like it, and I develop Free Software
>> because I like it. Adding libjs support will be, from what I'm
>> seeing, a challenging, interesting and instructive assignment.
>> So, I'm on it.
> I don't know the level of committment you are able to give, but I think
> you are underestimating what is needed to do the job properly. I think
> if you do do it well you will become one of the prime developers for
> the whole of Lynx, not just for the JS add on, as the job will encompass
> the whole of the user facing side of Lynx.
> ++ I think it will get upgraded soon.