Stut wrote:
On 12 May 2008, at 09:39, Peter Ford wrote:
tedd wrote:
Hi gang:
This is what I did this morning:
http://webbytedd.com/bb/tribute/
It speaks for itself.
Cheers,
tedd
tedd,
Nothing to do with the subject matter, but I noticed because it is one
of your more simple pages: I get a JS "urchinTracker() not defined"
error on your site, almost certainly because NoScript is blocking
UrchinTracker...
Perhaps you should wrap that naked call to urchinTracker() in a
conditional - maybe as simple as
if (urchinTracker) urchinTracker();
<pet-peeve>
I really hate seeing JS errors on published sites (i.e. not
development sandboxes)
</pet-peeve>
'course, there are many sites that make the same call to
urchinTracker(), and many many worse errors...
I see your pet peeve and I'll raise you one of mine...
<pet-peeve>
People who use Javascript blockers, especially Javascript blockers that
do a half-arsed job which causes errors.
</pet-peeve>
If you're going to block Javascript, block it. Don't use something that
tries (and apparently fails) to block it intelligently.
What are you so afraid of?
-Stut
Your pet peeve seems to be a rather thinly veiled personal attack - I tried to
be clear to tedd that my comment was not personal, but highlighted by his page.
Javascript is a very powerful but rather blunt instrument, and I prefer to be
judicious in my use of power.
NoScript is not causing the error. The absence of UrchinTracker is causing the
error. I choose not to allow UrchinTracker into my system.
NoScript is certainly not doing a half-arsed job - it's working perfectly,
unless you think I should suffer extra CPU cycles while the browser parses every
line of Javascript to see what will happen before running it. That would be a
job for a compiler, rather than a scripting engine.
What I'm most "afraid" of are assumptions that something I didn't ask for exists
in the environment I use to work in. If a page features a message that says "we
use Urchin Tracker to (...whatever it is that Urchin Tracker does...) and you
may see errors if you block it", then I can understand.
What I also am "afraid" of is that I don't know everything that I should be
afraid of - using NoScript is a good way of giving me chance to research the
stuff that is being pushed into my browser. Of course, in some cases I don't
feel the need to research, and block unconditionally until I see a problem with
that approach.
A developer should not make assumptions about the existence of a feature in the
target system - he should specify requirements and let the end-user decide if
his product is acceptable, or check that a feature is present and work around it
if not.
I can even tolerate "This site requires Internet Explorer 5.3 or later" (as my
credit card company does) if the providers are upfront about it...
I don't consider being afraid as a weakness - but blasé indifference to danger
can be a fatal weakness.
--
Peter Ford phone: 01580 893333
Developer fax: 01580 893399
Justcroft International Ltd., Staplehurst, Kent
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
