Re: A new filter-based customization interface

[Björn Bidar]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > >   > >   > I added a screenshot of what such an interface might look 
> like (which
>   > >   > >   > is better than words).  https://justpaste.it/fdau4.
>   > >   > >
>   > >   > > That site seems to depend on nonfree Javascript code.  Those of 
> us who
>   > >   > > block nonfree Javascript. or block Javascript entirely, cannot see
>   > >   > > whatever you meant to show us.
>   > >
>   > >   > The website works entirely without JavaScript.
>   > >
>   > > I just tried it again and verified that LibreJS reported blocked 
> scripts.
>   > > (They are blocked for not being labeled with a free liecense.
>   > >
>
>   > The website loads without JS if you encounter such an issue try loading
>   > without JS.
>
> I am not sure what that concretely means.
>
> What exactly do you man by "loading without JS">

By blocking JavaScript entirely for that website, i.e. not advertise
that the browser supports it. Browser extensions such NoScript can do
this.


> I _normally_ disable nonfree JS, by using LibreJS.  Are you trying to
> say that the site fails with LibreJS but would work properly if I were
> to disable JavaScrpt 100% instead?

I this context it should work properly but not in all websites. Sometime
websites have fallbacks for users who disable JavaScript completely for
their own personal reasons, for accessibility or to be compatible witn
legacy browsers. 

> If the site works that way, it is a pain in the neck, but it can
> be fixed.
>
>   > Why do you keep talking about the JavaScript which you don't
>   > like to load?
>
> That sentence seems to stretch words which are not contradictory so as
> to accuse them of being contradictory.

You continued to talk about JavaScript when I told you how you can avoid
it in this context (and possibly) others entirely.

I don't agree with that point. But to make it clear to avoid any
misunderstandings this is not a personal attack, I wrote you because in
this context I was specifically talked to you.