4 ms·

Why am i required to enable javascript just to read text on Joe Hewitt's blog? No degradation at all? :(

by kefs 15y ago

icebraining 15y ago
Not sure what you're talking about, it doesn't need JS. Works fine here with NoScript, and the source clearly shows the content directly in the HTML.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  Not here. The source of this blog post is a script tag that writes a script tag that actually writes the post content. The content isn't in the source. http://pastebin.com/CXh0nvXm http://pastebin.com/CXh0nvXm
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Uh, odd. Both Firefox and curl give me the proper content: http://paste.debian.net/plain/134758 http://paste.debian.net/plain/134758
    - joehewitt 15y ago
      Sorry, I'm doing some experimental stuff here. I do UA sniffing to decide whether to render the page on the server (with Node.js) or on the client with Ajax. Crawlers and old browsers get static content, new browsers get JavaScript.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        Have you thought about adding a link to a server rendered version (something like same_url+"?script=0") inside a <noscript> area? It'd be easy to implement.
joehewitt 15y ago
I'm using a fairly experimental JavaScript-driven system right now. It's totally overkill for a blog, but it's my blog and I can do stuff like this for fun. No offense, but if you disable JavaScript, you get what you deserve.
- icebraining 15y ago
  >you get what you deserve A more secure and tracking-free experience? By the way, nothing against that (although I probably won't bother enabling it), but is it doing User-Agent sniffing? Because here in Firefox 6 it loads a normal HTML version.
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    I love how the industry can spend a decade advocating the separation of form and content, and then in a handful of years go to completely co-mingling the two, at least and especially from the end user perspective. I disable Javascript out of necessity. Having cleaned enough garbage off of others' computers, and having struggled long enough to pay attention despite the "blinkenlights", I find I really have no alternative. Your choice, Joe. Fine, although I don't particularly appreciate the snarky rhetoric. (I find the combination of "No offense..." and "you get what you deserve" to be a rhetorical ploy.)

Why am i required to enable javascript just to read text on Joe Hewitt's blog? No degradation at all? :(

by kefs 15y ago

Why am i required to enable javascript just to read text on Joe Hewitt's blog? No degradation at all? :(

Not sure what you're talking about, it doesn't need JS. Works fine here with NoScript, and the source clearly shows the content directly in the HTML.

dangrossman 15y ago
Not here. The source of this blog post is a script tag that writes a script tag that actually writes the post content. The content isn't in the source. http://pastebin.com/CXh0nvXm http://pastebin.com/CXh0nvXm
- icebraining 15y ago
  Uh, odd. Both Firefox and curl give me the proper content: http://paste.debian.net/plain/134758 http://paste.debian.net/plain/134758
  - joehewitt 15y ago
    Sorry, I'm doing some experimental stuff here. I do UA sniffing to decide whether to render the page on the server (with Node.js) or on the client with Ajax. Crawlers and old browsers get static content, new browsers get JavaScript.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      Have you thought about adding a link to a server rendered version (something like same_url+"?script=0") inside a <noscript> area? It'd be easy to implement.

joehewitt 15y ago

I'm using a fairly experimental JavaScript-driven system right now. It's totally overkill for a blog, but it's my blog and I can do stuff like this for fun. No offense, but if you disable JavaScript, you get what you deserve.

icebraining 15y ago
>you get what you deserve A more secure and tracking-free experience? By the way, nothing against that (although I probably won't bother enabling it), but is it doing User-Agent sniffing? Because here in Firefox 6 it loads a normal HTML version.
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  I love how the industry can spend a decade advocating the separation of form and content, and then in a handful of years go to completely co-mingling the two, at least and especially from the end user perspective. I disable Javascript out of necessity. Having cleaned enough garbage off of others' computers, and having struggled long enough to pay attention despite the "blinkenlights", I find I really have no alternative. Your choice, Joe. Fine, although I don't particularly appreciate the snarky rhetoric. (I find the combination of "No offense..." and "you get what you deserve" to be a rhetorical ploy.)