</noscript> Issue

[FreeCopywritingTips]

Does anyone know how to get around the </noscriptissue, were my HTML
editor refuses to save this tag?

[Rik Wasmus]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:18:35 +0100, FreeCopywriting Tips
<daniellevis@sy mpatico.cawrote :

Does anyone know how to get around the </noscriptissue, were my HTML
editor refuses to save this tag?

Any decent text editor will have no trouble with it... So at least mention
which editor you use, and probably ask in a group/forum related to that
editor, as people are more likely to know the ins and outs of that
particular tool.
--
Rik Wasmus

[David Dorward]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

Steve Swift wrote:

Wouldn't you add a:
<NOSCRIPT>Thi s page works better with JavaScript enabled</NOSCRIPT>
though, when this was the case?

No. If someone has decided to disable JS, or is using a client which doesn't
support it, then constant reminders about it are going to be irritating.


--
David Dorward

http://dorward.me.uk/

http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

Scripsit Steve Swift:

Wouldn't you add a:
<NOSCRIPT>Thi s page works better with JavaScript enabled</NOSCRIPT>
though, when this was the case?

No, I wouldn't write anything that foolish. At the minimum, I would tell
what the user gets, in terms of added functionality.

As you well know, my scripting is pathetic, so I use it only for
little flourishes that marginally improve the page's usability, so
such a statement is almost always true on my pages.

And virtually useless then. In human communication, useless easily turns
into harmful, since it distracts from the useful.

Incidentally, I work in a closed environment where scripting is on by
definition, and only off by the deviants.

Factually, this group is about WWW authoring, which is by definition not
a closed environment.

I recently saw someone suggesting to add some script that determined
if JavaScript was disabled. I'm still trying to figure this one out.

The world would be a much duller place without clueless people, wouldn't
it?

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Andreas Prilop]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Steve Swift wrote:

Wouldn't you add a:
<NOSCRIPT>Thi s page works better with JavaScript enabled</NOSCRIPT>

ALT="This page works better with images"

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

[Andreas Prilop]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, aoksite1@gmail. com wrote:

L. 508 Standards, Section 1194.22,

Did you know that there are countries other than the United States?

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

[aoksite1@gmail.com]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On Jan 25, 9:45 am, Andreas Prilop <aprilop2...@tr ashmail.netwrot e:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, aoksi...@gmail. com wrote:

L. 508 Standards, Section 1194.22,

>
Did you know that there are countries other than the United States?
>
--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Duh, and your point is.

Daniel

[Andy Dingley]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On 25 Jan, 15:33, VK <schools_r...@y ahoo.comwrote:

<FYI>
heavily outdated b.s. from early 90's

Oh VK, and you were doing so _well_! Yesterday you posted something
that was sensible and useful. Maybe it was just HipCrime?

[Andy Dingley]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On 25 Jan, 15:47, "aoksi...@gmail .com" <aoksi...@gmail .comwrote:

More info on 508 standards
>
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm

A site which uses client-side JS to display a "disclaimer "!

http://www.access-board.gov/js/disclaimer.js

Noow _that's_ real genius!

[Ed Jay]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

Andy Dingley scribed:

>On 25 Jan, 15:47, "aoksi...@gmail .com" <aoksi...@gmail .comwrote:
>

>More info on 508 standards
>>
>http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm

>
>A site which uses client-side JS to display a "disclaimer "!
>http://www.access-board.gov/js/disclaimer.js
>
>Noow _that's_ real genius!

'Noow,' _that's_ real genius. :-)))

Didn't you notice it's a government site? What did you expect? ;-) ;-)

--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

[Ed Jay]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

aoksite1@gmail. com scribed:

>One significant reason for disabling JavaScript when browsing the
>Internet is that it is a definite security hazard to the user if they
>have JavaScript enabled. There is a lot of malicious code on web
>sites that uses JavaScript to infect the user's computer with
>malicious code.
>

Please elaborate by providing an example of how js can be used to compromise
a user's computer with malicious code.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

[aoksite1@gmail.com]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On Jan 25, 1:21 pm, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.comwrote:

aoksi...@gmail. com scribed:
>

One significant reason for disabling JavaScript when browsing the
Internet is that it is a definite security hazard to the user if they
have JavaScript enabled. There is a lot of malicious code on web
sites that uses JavaScript to infect the user's computer with
malicious code.

>
Please elaborate by providing an example of how js can be used to compromise
a user's computer with malicious code.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

You have to be kidding. If you need examples, visit
http://groups.google.com/group/stopbadware or http://www.stopbadware.org/home.

Daniel

http://a-ok-site.com

[aoksite1@gmail.com]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On Jan 25, 1:35 pm, "aoksi...@gmail .com" <aoksi...@gmail .comwrote:

On Jan 25, 1:21 pm, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.comwrote:
>

aoksi...@gmail. com scribed:

>

>One significant reason for disabling JavaScript when browsing the
>Internet is that it is a definite security hazard to the user if they
>have JavaScript enabled. There is a lot of malicious code on web
>sites that uses JavaScript to infect the user's computer with
>malicious code.

>

Please elaborate by providing an example of how js can be used to compromise
a user's computer with malicious code.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

>
You have to be kidding. If you need examples, visithttp://groups.google.c om/group/stopbadwareorht tp://www.stopbadware .org/home.
>
Daniel
>
http://a-ok-site.com

Sorry, I really thought you were kidding. But your post to the other
group http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ascript/topics shows
you weren't. Take some time and check out the stopbadware group it
has a lot of great info.

Daniel

http://a-ok-site.com

[Ed Jay]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

aoksite1@gmail. com scribed:

>On Jan 25, 1:35 pm, "aoksi...@gmail .com" <aoksi...@gmail .comwrote:

>On Jan 25, 1:21 pm, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.comwrote:
>>

aoksi...@gmail. com scribed:

>>

>One significant reason for disabling JavaScript when browsing the
>Internet is that it is a definite security hazard to the user if they
>have JavaScript enabled. There is a lot of malicious code on web
>sites that uses JavaScript to infect the user's computer with
>malicious code.

>>

Please elaborate by providing an example of how js can be used to compromise
a user's computer with malicious code.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

>>
>You have to be kidding. If you need examples, visithttp://groups.google.c om/group/stopbadwareorht tp://www.stopbadware .org/home.
>>
>Daniel
>>
>http://a-ok-site.com

>
>Sorry, I really thought you were kidding. But your post to the other
>group http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ascript/topics shows
>you weren't. Take some time and check out the stopbadware group it
>has a lot of great info.
>

You have good eyes, but my post to the js group is intended to start a
discussion, not to answer the base question. As I said in my query there, I
believe your statement to be false, i.e., js cannot be used to infect a
user's machine without the user's express permission.

I checked the stopbadware group. They're not talking about js being used to
infect a user's machine. They're talking about js being injected into
existing sites (hacking). They talk about badware on a user's machine, but
that badware has to be downloaded and executed, e.g., an attachment, exe
file, or packaged clandestinely with another application.

AFAIK, your statement is an artifact from years past when it was incorrectly
propagated that js was a security risk. It isn't (afaik).
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

[aoksite1@gmail.com]

Re: &lt;/noscript&gt; Issue

On Jan 25, 1:53 pm, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.comwrote:

aoksi...@gmail. com scribed:
>
>
>

On Jan 25, 1:35 pm, "aoksi...@gmail .com" <aoksi...@gmail .comwrote:

On Jan 25, 1:21 pm, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.comwrote:

>

aoksi...@gmail. com scribed:

>

>One significant reason for disabling JavaScript when browsing the
>Internet is that it is a definite security hazard to the user if they
>have JavaScript enabled. There is a lot of malicious code on web
>sites that uses JavaScript to infect the user's computer with
>malicious code.

>

Please elaborate by providing an example of how js can be used to compromise
a user's computer with malicious code.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

>

You have to be kidding. If you need examples, visithttp://groups.google.c om/group/stopbadwareorht tp://www.stopbadware .or....

>

Daniel

>

>http://a-ok-site.com

>

Sorry, I really thought you were kidding. But your post to the other
grouphttp://groups.google.c om/group/comp.lang.javas cript/topicsshows
you weren't. Take some time and check out the stopbadware group it
has a lot of great info.

>
You have good eyes, but my post to the js group is intended to start a
discussion, not to answer the base question. As I said in my query there, I
believe your statement to be false, i.e., js cannot be used to infect a
user's machine without the user's express permission.
>
I checked the stopbadware group. They're not talking about js being used to
infect a user's machine. They're talking about js being injected into
existing sites (hacking). They talk about badware on a user's machine, but
that badware has to be downloaded and executed, e.g., an attachment, exe
file, or packaged clandestinely with another application.
>
AFAIK, your statement is an artifact from years past when it was incorrectly
propagated that js was a security risk. It isn't (afaik).
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

It seems funny to me that Google is flagging the web sites as
containing malicious code and that they may cause harm to your
computer.

Daniel

http://a-ok-site.com