[NTLUG:Discuss] Javascript and CSS == Usable WWW browser? was Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] BrowseX (FAST, small browser) is outinBETA!!

[Steve Baker]

Jeremy Blosser wrote:

> > Using ECMAscript controls to link to stuff instead of <a href=
> > "whatever.html"> seems a false indicator of "eliteness."
> 
> Yes, unless you have an audience that isn't going to be web savvy and you
> want to give them options for a 'back' button on the page.  The best you
> can do in HTML is link back to a predefined page that may or may not be how
> they got where they are.  With a scripted link you can access the browser's
> history and work the same way the back button does.  There are other cases
> where dynamically-generated links inline can save space/download
> time/hassle for the user.

This is just typical of the 'fluff' that modern web pages accumulate.

Why the heck do we need one or more 'back' buttons that use all this
Javascript gizmology simply to duplicate a prominently displayed and
clearly labelled button that every browser already has?  Then accompany
it with a few hundred bytes of graphics for the button itself and you
have a waste of bandwidth as well as needless screen clutter.

Stoopid!

Whilst JavaScript *can* be used for good - it's far more
common for it to be used to support unnecessary bloat.

The worst thing about all this generated-on-the-fly material
is the inability of search engines to index it and other pages
to link to it.  That is a VERY great evil for the future of
the Internet since it allows people to control our ability to
quote them by pointing at what they said.

-- 
Steve Baker   HomeEmail: <sjbaker1 at airmail.net>
              WorkEmail: <sjbaker at link.com>
              HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
              Projects : http://plib.sourceforge.net
                         http://tuxaqfh.sourceforge.net
                         http://tuxkart.sourceforge.net
                         http://prettypoly.sourceforge.net