New home page

[Nick Sabalausky]

"BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff1d6c58cd31a68901b792 at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> "BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message
>> news:a6268ff1d6668cd315bbe9b6d30 at news.digitalmars.com...
>>
>>> are you in china?
>>>
>> Unless
>> the browser is stupid enough to actually try to load external scripts
>> when JS is off...
>
> 1) You are assuming some third party isn't an idiot. I wouldn't usually 
> bet on that one.

Good point.

> 2) there could be some sort of CSS/img/etc. component to it that doesn't 
> get ignored.
>

I checked the page source. Outside of actual JS code, the only reference to 
anything at twitter is one external JS file reference. And there's no 
external CSS files referenced.

> Point being that the whole web is so stinking complicated the only way to 
> tell what the effects of blocking something are is to block it and see.
>

Fortunately Walter's pages and nice and simple :)

You're probably right that I can't be 100% certain. But I'm fairly certain 
about it, at least aside from the question of browsers possibly loading JS 
files when JS is off. And regarding that:

I've just done a little test in FF2: I have JS turned off via NoScript, I 
cleared the cache, and used the HttpFox extension to inspect the browser's 
HTTP behavior while loading http://www.digitalmars.com. These are the only 
URLs it reported the browser loading:

http://www.digitalmars.com
http://www.digitalmars.com/dmlogo.gif
http://www.digitalmars.com/download.png
http://www.digitalmars.com/library.png
http://www.digitalmars.com/news.png
http://www.digitalmars.com/buy.png

So at least in FF2 with JS disabled via NoScript, twitter doesn't get 
referenced by the client. Or at least if HttpFox is to be trusted, but I've 
never had a problem with it.