Lars Rune N�stdal  <larsnostdal@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Madhu wrote:
| > |> PS: If it *requires* javascript to be usable, its wasting your time
| > | no, you may do it without javascript if you wish
| > 
| > No, my point was the yardstick (for the discerning user) is that if a
| > website is asking you to turn on javascript to deliver content, *you*
| > the website is designed with intent to waste your time/bandwidth/deliver
| > ads/etc
| 
| Yeah, you'll have to figure out a way to "deliver ads" using HTML with
| no JavaScript. comp.lang.lisp wins again.
| 
| What [do] you people want?
+---------------

For a website to deliver enough of its content *WITHOUT* requiring
that the user open his browser to JavaScript -- and thus open his
system to one of the largest malware vectors extant today -- so that
the user at least has a way to judge whether the content is valuable
enough to him to risk the exposure.

And, yes, I know that some media (e.g., SwF, YT, etc.) can't be
delivered without enabling JavaScript, but at least allow the user
access to the full *textual* content of the site [including navigation]
without it!!

Finally, delivering ads w/o JavaScript is trivial -- that non sequitor
don't hunt.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607