Re: Crisis Magazine in L Y N X

Error checking I consider housekeeping.  I have no problem with javascript
on a page so long as any browser can work the page without javascript
bitching at people who use browsers that don't support javascript.


-- Jude <jdashiel at panix dot com> "There are four boxes to be used in
defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that
order." Ed Howdershelt 1940.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Mouse wrote:

> > Correctly written web sites use java script for housekeeping behind
> > the scenes and nothing more.
>
> Depending on what you mean by "housekeeping", there's also a place for
> optimizations, such as client-side checking of form fields for obvious
> errors before submitting the form.  (A simple example is checking that
> a required field is nonempty.)
>
> I'd also argue that there can be such a thing as a correctly written
> page that actually depends on Javascript.  For example, I have a (so
> far very partial) card game which is designed to run in-browser, with
> the client side being written in JavaScript.  Turn off JavaScript and
> it won't work, yes, but I see that as no different from, say, something
> written in Python failing to run for lack of a Python interpreter.
>
> The problem, to my mind, arises when a page could degrade gracefully
> when faced with lack of JS, but doesn't.
>
> I'm not sure how I feel about things like, say, "Enable JavaScript to
> see comments on this post" when it could be done but, in the opinion of
> the page's provider/author, just isn't worth the resource investment.
>
> /~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
> \ / Ribbon Campaign
>  X  Against HTML		[email protected]
> / \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
>
>