On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 20:36 +0000, Kenny Hitt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 08:16:35PM -0000, Micah Cowan wrote: > > Huh. I didn't know elinks had JavaScript support... that's... cool! > > > > If it's an experimental feature, though, it might be unwise to enable it > > on the normal binary package... perhaps it could be made as a separately > > built package (say, elisp-ecmascript).
(Of course, I meant elinks-ecmascript above) > It uses the spidermonkey package for it's javascript. Not all features > have been implemented yet in elinks code, that is why it is considered > experimental. Yes; but in many cases, incomplete JavaScript support can be worse than none at all, for browsing the web. That's not usually the case for web spiders. For instance, sites that have both JavaScript and non-script support often have a conditional block which says "if they have JavaScript, then do this, if not, then do this" (<script>, <noscript>). The problem is that if full support for ECMAScript and/or mainstream JavaScript constructs is not available, the <script> block may fail to work, and the <noscript> block won't be evaluated (since it's presumed that you have JavaScript). Often, feature-tests are performed in well-written JavaScript, but few indeed perform feature-tests of anything that's known to be available in all mainstream browsers, and feature-tests may not be available for everything, anyway. So it could be unwise to enable JavaScript by default. If the elinks support for JavaScript can be enabled with a flag, and left disabled by default, then I suppose it might be alright to include the support in the default build, though. This is, of course, only my 2ยข, and I am not the one who will be making decisions on this... that would probably be Martin Pitt or Peter Gervai, or some other MOTU at least. -- javascript support is disabled. https://launchpad.net/bugs/64031 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
