[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] helping newcomers start blogs - but where?

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] helping newcomers start blogs - but where?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 17:42:24 -0700

On 08/20/2017 04:02 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Interesting view...
> I wonder however, how to deal with cases where the site
> visitor/guest/client doesn't have any script blocker or scanner enabled?
> Surely he'll fall into the JavaScript trap... and it's in this situation
> that the problem is. You and I both have either GNU LibreJS or NoScript,
> but we can't assume that everyone else has either one of these because
> most browsers don't come with these by default, and I'm also talking
> about web browsers for mobile devices.

I'm not saying Blogger is fine. It's proprietary. It's far from ideal.
But there *are* lots of sites that won't render without non-free JS, and
Blogger isn't one of those. So, we should just get the complaints correct.

Side note: even requiring 100% free JS to render is stupid as JS
shouldn't be needed *ever* to render plain HTML content.

Oh, and I acknowledge there's a weird trend of mobile sites using extra
JS that a non-mobile version doesn't need. That stinks.

> Also, regarding GNU LibreJS, like any human made thing, it also isn't
> perfect, but there are some points to consider:

LibreJS would be great if only it were more popular and well-maintained
and recognized. It doesn't need to be perfect. I'm not saying it's
garbage either. All I'm saying is that LibreJS has enough innacuracy to
not be a reliable source for the status of things. If a site works with
LibreJS, it's almost certainly legit. But if it fails, we don't know
immediately if it was just an error or a failure of the site to follow
LibreJS protocols versus actual non-libre issues.

> - At least in the case of Blogger: Just because GNU LibreJS doesn't
>   recognize the licensing markup advised in its documentation, this
>   doesn't mean Blogger can simply skip doing the licensing markup in the
>   way advised by GNU LibreJS documentation. Visiting a "Blogger blog" I
>   see that Blogger simply doesn't attempt to license most of the scripts
>   that are both inside the HTML page ("script" elements and other
>   scripting elements per the HTML standards) and in JS scripts.

Yes, and that's common of most sites. But the scripts can be blocked and
Blogger sites still render. That was my only point. Not that Blogger is
okay or should be recommended.

> - From the past consulting I gave to people about freeing their JS, I
>   noticed something very strange: People often seem to forget that
>   DOM/HTML/JS events handlers/listeners are scripting elements. GNU
>   LibreJS knows this, but web developers seem to forget. :)

Today's web developers do all sorts of horrendous crap. Pages that
should be static content are full of nonsense and bloat.

> Having said all that, I do agree that any client-side website scripting
> is a plague that must be avoided. But if there is such a thing in a
> given website, then it ought to be either free/libre and clearly marked
> as such to the visitor/guest/user, or entirely removed from the website.

I agree, of course. But we're a long way from that dream. The web has
largely become a pit of malice with manipulative ads, addictive designs,
click-bait, propaganda, surveillance, etc. If that stuff was done with
libre client-side JS instead of non-free, it wouldn't necessarily make
that much difference, although I'd certainly want it versus the status quo.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]