Firstly, in getting to where we are don't forget that Domino came out of the corporate / business environment and was never designed or architected for 'public' consumption in the way that many other web delivery vehicles have been. Given that, it's hardly suprising that there are a few issues here and there when it's used in the web (as opposed to the intranet) world.
Secondly, guidelines that 'require' funtionality to be independant of scripting whilst apparently accepting that they cannot be independant of browser device seem bizarre to me.
Thirdly, JS is a *** standards based technology *** so it would seem that 'they' have 'approved' its use. Now why would 'they' do that if it wasn't necessary and there were acceptable alternatives ???
Because, of course, there are NO alternatives to client side scripting for certain jobs. PERIOD.
A simple example is drag and drop / drawing, expecially for things like workflow charts / interactive mapping etc Try delivering an application allowing users to select from a range of graphics, place them on a background and connect them together with an arbitrarily complex web (no pun) of lines. Then allow any one of the graphics to be dragged with full rubber banding of connecting lines. No JS ? No application (typical workflow chart) !!
But then 'guidelines' are just that. GUIDE - lines.They are not mandated, they are not the law, and anyway we all know that laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise don't we ?
There are many times when compromises have to be made in the design of applications, indeed I submit that you ALWAYS have to make compromises somewhere or other.
Given that JS is 'safe' in a sense that eg ActiveX is 'unsafe' then requiring that users permit JS seems to me to be a reasonable constraint to be imposed for good and sound technical reasons, failing which the additional complexity and cost of development or the loss of functionality is likely to be unacceptable.
As such I will continue to use JS where I consider it appropriate, GUIDE-lines notwithstanding.
Cheers
PS I'd hate for this discussion to encourage anyone to stop using JS (or even Domino, God forbid !). I'd rather encourage those who don't allow JS to see the error of their ways.
PPS Can anyone give me a rational reason to dis-allow JS. Don't say 'security' as the security risks involved in simply using a (typically Windows) PC, especially attached to the Net, absolutely dwarf those relating to JS per se.
Jake
A final word(s) before I leave it alone :-)
Firstly, in getting to where we are don't forget that Domino came out of the corporate / business environment and was never designed or architected for 'public' consumption in the way that many other web delivery vehicles have been. Given that, it's hardly suprising that there are a few issues here and there when it's used in the web (as opposed to the intranet) world.
Secondly, guidelines that 'require' funtionality to be independant of scripting whilst apparently accepting that they cannot be independant of browser device seem bizarre to me.
Thirdly, JS is a *** standards based technology *** so it would seem that 'they' have 'approved' its use. Now why would 'they' do that if it wasn't necessary and there were acceptable alternatives ???
Because, of course, there are NO alternatives to client side scripting for certain jobs. PERIOD.
A simple example is drag and drop / drawing, expecially for things like workflow charts / interactive mapping etc Try delivering an application allowing users to select from a range of graphics, place them on a background and connect them together with an arbitrarily complex web (no pun) of lines. Then allow any one of the graphics to be dragged with full rubber banding of connecting lines. No JS ? No application (typical workflow chart) !!
But then 'guidelines' are just that. GUIDE - lines.They are not mandated, they are not the law, and anyway we all know that laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise don't we ?
There are many times when compromises have to be made in the design of applications, indeed I submit that you ALWAYS have to make compromises somewhere or other.
Given that JS is 'safe' in a sense that eg ActiveX is 'unsafe' then requiring that users permit JS seems to me to be a reasonable constraint to be imposed for good and sound technical reasons, failing which the additional complexity and cost of development or the loss of functionality is likely to be unacceptable.
As such I will continue to use JS where I consider it appropriate, GUIDE-lines notwithstanding.
Cheers
PS I'd hate for this discussion to encourage anyone to stop using JS (or even Domino, God forbid !). I'd rather encourage those who don't allow JS to see the error of their ways.
PPS Can anyone give me a rational reason to dis-allow JS. Don't say 'security' as the security risks involved in simply using a (typically Windows) PC, especially attached to the Net, absolutely dwarf those relating to JS per se.