On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:47:16 -0400, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
they really are placing the blame in the wrong place, very few web sites really need to require javascript. It would have been nicer to see Mozilla push back against sites requiring javascript to function rather than to make it harder for people to reduce their risk of getting owned.
Oh really? what about AJAX apps?. GMail? Twitter?
GMail and Twitter are a very small percentage of web sites. You are already trusting Google a lot if you are using them to handle your email. Much of what GMail provides can be accessed using a standard imap client and doesn't need to be used via a web application.
- You miss the point: the Mozarella Foundation's Grand Plan includes
pushing for HTML5 apps... "web pages" -static text content- is an endagered species, more and more web sites require JS for user validation, log-in, dynamic content, dynamic menus, etc.
That's why also they are on a crusade against plug-ins, they want everything to be HTML5...
Right, because giving remote people direct access to GPUs is a good idea.
- Can you cite some examples of "getting owned via Javascript"?
That's not my field, so I don't specifically track them. I do see reports of them from time to time. And was given a description of one in a SANS class.
The images block is even stranger. Many sites look a lot better without images. And it needs to be a really badly designed web page to break when images are not loaded.
Oh really? Thanks you saved my life. Now that you mention it, I prefer to read news without images, and shop amazon.com without pictures! You get a lot of exciting surprises that way!
Most of the news I read actually is better without pictures. As the pictures are almost all ads and have nothing to do with the stories. For shopping, it probably is useful and can be turned on for that.