JavaScript is only a tool

[Lorenzo L. Ancora]

> As an addendum, by the way, W3C also has XForms, which I think is way
> safer for form submission,[...]
The Mozilla Developer Network says:

"XForms is a convention for building Web forms and processing form data 
in the XML format. No major browser supports XForms any longer—we 
suggest using HTML5 forms instead."

...and:

"This feature is no longer recommended. Though some browsers might still 
support it, it may have already been removed from the relevant web 
standards, may be in the process of being dropped, or may only be kept 
for compatibility purposes. Avoid using it, and update existing code if 
possible; see the compatibility table at the bottom of this page to 
guide your decision. Be aware that this feature may cease to work at any 
time."

The XForms idea is great on paper but I have the suspicion this 
technology is being hidden under the carpet because the transitioning 
costs/risks do not justify the advantages (probably they only reduce the 
amount of JavaScript, without managing to transform all of it in an 
optional dependency). I recall OpenOffice and LibreOffice do support 
XForms, however there is officially no compatibility with other office 
suites.

> I don't hate JavaScript just because “it is JavaScript”, but because the
> current HTML standard defines scripting elements in a way such that they
> are considered client-side autoexecuted. I could express the same hatred
> for any other future scripting language that people would dearly support
> in web browsers (including WebAssembly) if these were to show the same
> issues in the related standards.

It's like hating a hammer because sometimes you misused it and it 
crushed your finger. The solution is not to look for a better hammer or 
to start using rocks like our ancestors, but to improve your dexterity 
in using the hammer. :-)

From the example I did in the previous email, you might deduce it is 
highly uneconomical to ask for permission to run each individual script, 
as well as potentially insecure due to the superficiality of the end 
users. Imagine the Internet like a crowded bar where people go in and 
out all the time and where the webmasters are the bartenders who offer 
products and drinks: it is in the interest of the bartender to make sure 
that the entrance door can be used by as many customers as possible 
(especially by the most ignorant ones, who will always be the majority) 
and at the same time make sure that the use of the door does not 
distract from the rest of the bar. If the door asked every single 
customer to type in a password or ask for confirmation in any other way 
before opening, then the barista's income would be negatively impacted. 
This is why JavaScript (and any other scripting language on the web) 
will always be executed without prompting the end users.

The solution will never be banishing JavaScript (impossible) but to 
learn how to be a better web developer by implementing fallback 
mechanisms where possible (in other words, educate the developers on how 
to implement JS as an optional dependency).


Il 20/07/21 19:20, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via ha scritto:
> Em 20-07-2021 15:36, Lorenzo L. Ancora via escreveu:
> > I could go into it for a long time, but these are threads that I have
> > been carrying on with GNU for years. If e.g. Richard (or any other
> > "hardcore wildebeest") has convinced you that JavaScript is evil then,
> > 100 demonstrations will not be enough, because you made a moral and
> > therefore irrational choice: prejudices are strengthened in groups due
> > to the mutual affirmation that, unfortunately, has the ability to kill
> > individual rationality.
>
> I don't hate JavaScript just because “it is JavaScript”, but because the
> current HTML standard defines scripting elements in a way such that they
> are considered client-side autoexecuted. I could express the same hatred
> for any other future scripting language that people would dearly support
> in web browsers (including WebAssembly) if these were to show the same
> issues in the related standards.
>
> As an addendum, by the way, W3C also has XForms, which I think is way
> safer for form submission, and seems to allow most of the flexibility I
> described here, but with only one single form, and without relying on JS.


--
All messages from/to this account should be considered private.
Messages from/to newsletters should not be reshared.
TZ: Europe/Rome (Italy - CEST).

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature