RE: HTTP Server's jobs for CGI applications

Brad wrote:
>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.

We're talking two different things:  JavaScript and Cookies.
Let's address each individually.  There are specific security
exposures using JavaScript on particular browsers.  But those
aren't my present concerns over JavaScript.  My JavaScript
concerns are primarily over accessibility issues that are made
more difficult by over-zealous use.


>> With cookies enabled, companies can and do track your web browsing
>> behavior.
>Again, the can without them too.  You agree to that,

Did I ?!?

>but you're going back
>to this like it's all cookies and Javascript's fault.  It's more the
>browser's.

By disabling cookies, you eliminate one of the biggest
ways for advertizers to track your movements through the
web.  The only fault with browsers is their inability to
keep up with unscrupulous actions of certain advertizers.

I don't blame cookies - there was good intent behind the
concept.  I just don't trust what some companies do with
them.

The "web bug" is not related to banner ads, but the
concept is similar.  The advertizer can know where the
bug was planted, but without access to your cookies,
they can't develop a user profile.


>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.

Well, this is another issue we have to agree to disagree on.

But what exactly do we disagree on?  That advertizers track
user movements through the web?  or that it's not that big
a deal if they do?

Certainly, we seem to disagree on the need to be on the
lookout for threats to our personal privacy and liberty.
Strangely enough, Europeans seem to be much more concerned
with the issue than Americans!

I, for one, am not willing to trade my privacy for the
convenience offered by cookies.


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

Flash is definitely "eye candy".  Fortunately, there are
very few sites worth visiting that use it.  And as far
as I can tell, I don't know of any sites that depend on
it for navigation.


>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.
>:)

Be my guest!  The ISP I use for home access offers 20M of
web space for its dial-up accounts.  I have 13M full at
the moment with literally hundreds of HTML files.  (I
haven't counted them lately.)  ALL of them validate as
proper "XHTML 1.0 Transitional".

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


+---
| 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
+---