Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.572.1331601463.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
[...]
> > All I'm saying is that if it makes sense for the web developer to
> > use javascript given what they're trying to do, it's completely
> > reasonable to expect that their users will have javascript enabled
> > (since virtually everyone does). If there's a better tool for the
> > job which is reasonably supported, then all the better. And if it's
> > easy to provide a workaround for the lack of JS at minimal effort,
> > then great. But given the fact that only a very small percentage of
> > your user base is going to have JS disabled, it's not unreasonable
> > to require it and not worry about the people who disable it if
> > that's what you want to do.
> >
> 
> Personally, I disagree with the notion that non-JS versions are a
> "workaround".
[...]

Me too. To me, non-JS versions are the *baseline*, and JS versions are
enchancements. To treat JS versions as baseline and non-JS versions as
"workaround" is just so completely backwards.


T

-- 
There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't.