RE: HTTP Server's jobs for CGI applications

> Agreed, for this scenario.  The security holes associated with
> JavaScript warrant much more detailed discussion that's beyond
> my patience to wade through.

We do this once a year it seems.  ;)  And you keep talking in circles.  The
security holes you speak of are with browsers, not Javascript or cookies
themselves, which is the problem.  So maybe you should be using a different
browser instead of worrying about Javascript and cookies.  But I know that's
hard to do.

> >
> >Selling customer lists has nothing to do with cookies or javascript.
> >That data is stored on their server.
> 
> My point is that paranoia about personal browsing habits is well
> justified.  The only reason that privacy laws are so weak in the
> USA is that several companies would then go out of business!
> 
> With cookies enabled, companies can and do track your web browsing
> behavior.

Again, the can without them too.  You agree to that, but you're going back
to this like it's all cookies and Javascript's fault.  It's more the
browser's.

> 
> Note that the next generation NetScape v6 apparently has an option
> to enable cookies ONLY for the server that served up the HTML, and
> not for other servers providing resources for that page.  This
> will stop that particular "back door" into tracking your activities.
> 

Great idea.  There are also third party software packages that do this that
are available now.  Only problem is NS can't keep up with the simple things
(like IE does) and although they were once a leader with browser technology,
they're not even close now.  Ask any web developer.

> 
> >
> >Oh gosh.  Not this site again.  One rougue site who's idea was
> >"stretch the truth about cookies" to get people to come to their
> >site.
> 
> There's a lot of good information on that site.  Understand the
> issues involved, and it will make more sense.  The issues are
> subtle.  Another source of information is
> <http://www.junkbusters.com/>.  Also, be sure to read the YRO
> section at SlashDot <http://slashdot.org/index.pl?section=yro>.

Hans, I do understand the issues.  I've developed plenty of web pages,
parused all these sites you speak of while learning, and know they're more
hype that not.  All extreme cases, just like my car that will fly example
that you ommitted from your response.

> 
> Oh yeah, one more thing, do a web search on the topic of "web
> bugs" - your activities can be tracked even if the web page
> you're viewing has no banner ads!

When did banner ads come into play, and when did banner ads become a
necesity to track changes?  Banner ads have little or nothing to do with it
except the vendor who's ad is there can track your changes, but, like i said
before, and you agreed, javascript and cookies aren't needed for this.

> 
> 
> >Why would they be pissed... just turn on Javascript.  It's 
> like people
> that
> >put movies out on DVD and not VHS.  Buy a freakin DVD player 
> and enjoy
> real
> >entertainment.  :)
> 
> If I need something that's only available on a site that uses
> JavaScript, well, sure I'll enable it for that one time.  But
> given the choice, I'll sure as heck choose a web site that
> doesn't make me use something I'd rather not use.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  If you really got into
JavaSCript, you'd see that the worst that could happen is someone writing a
loop to freeze up your browser.  Ctl-Alt-Del takes care of that little
nusiance.

> 
> But that doesn't hide the fact that it's still poor HTML
> coding style to code a dependency on JavaScript.  (Just like
> it's poor style to code navigation using image maps or Java.)
> JavaScript may add some "pizzazz" to an otherwise bland site,
> but it's really not difficult to design a web site without
> having to resort to such "eye candy".

Tell that to the Flash developers.  Javascript is old news for pizzaz and
eye candy.

> 
> I'm not against JavaScript as such, I'm just against requiring
> JavaScript to navigate through a web site.
> 
> (Also, BTW, be sure to tell your friends at rpgenerationx.net
> to run their HTML through the W3C validator at
> <http://validator.w3c.org/>.)

Ya, then tell W3C to run theirs through it.  Just as many errors.  Then tell
Yahoo, M$, Netscape, e-Bay, etc.. etc.. etc...  Where's one of your sites.
I'd like to run it though it as well to see if you practice what you preach.
:)

Brad

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---