3 ms·
Nothing stopping you from turning off JS in your web browser. ;) I have, and whitelist the sites that really need it.
by Andrex 5y ago
Nothing stopping you from turning off JS in your web browser. ;)
I have, and whitelist the sites that really need it.
- Daegalus 5y agoI did that for a while, but I want to kind of enforce it. If a sight is unusuable without JS, maybe its worth finding an alternative. Or maybe form a new sub-internet of just javascript-less web. HTML, server-side rendering, etc.
- Andrex 5y agoDefinitely a cool idea. I've thought a lot about this idea as I'm sure many others on this post have. A protocol for just HTML/CSS (and a lightweight bridge) could be cool to see. This desire was why I was initially on board with AMP (before I saw the bigger problems with that format.) I've also thought about a JSON-only protocol. In my mind this would make it simple to do AJAX-type interactions for loading content (the core benefit of JS to me) while still excising JS in its entirety, but I haven't thought it through very far admittedly. This is the first time I'm hearing about Gemini and I'm really intrigued, especially how it's handling input and identity. There's potential here...
- Seirdy 5y agoIf I see an http(s) URL, I have no idea whether I'll have to play whack-a-mole with selective attack-surface expansion (enabling JS, media, SVG, third-party JS, or JIT) for a rich text document to load. If I see a gemini:// link, I know in advance that a singe download will give me a single readable page, and that it probably won't make my old laptop's fans spin or kill my battery. This significantly improves usability.