Personally, I don't beleive has permission to open windows on my computer any more than they have permission to launch my applications or download my files. You're assuming that making new windows is a valid thing that pages should be able to do for advertizing. To hell with pop-ups, pop-unders, javascript, flash, shockwave, etc. The point of the open-source is that if my browser is going to do anything, I have the ultimate control since the code is run from my machine. What do I do? I just disable that stuff, if I can't navigate the site, then I won't go there. types of stuff to close source their sites require a third party program (at least with the Sun Java client under windows I use) to be viewed. Those sites that use obnoxious java, flash, etc. I don't mean that you can take whatever you want, but what I mean is that most of the website's code can be viewed. The thing that websites need to understand is that most of the web is "open-source". For sites like that, a simple window killer works fine. What they have done is made it do that to navigate the site, you have to enable javascript. The only site that gives mee problems is. there is no way around this method of blocking and it works great. It is a proxy that sits on your own machine and basically filters webpages for pop-ups, javascript, ads, etc.
I think a better question to ask is: What is the intrinsic Good in having one company control the Internet?
(another example is diverting from the openGL standard with Direct3D). They, time and time again, choose not to go this route, and instead opt for a proprietary one. Keep in mind - If M$ has "innovations" to offer, they are perfectly capable of working with the W3C to implement them in the standard. However, the fact remains that we are in FAR greater hands with the W3C than if M$ was in charge. If you want to make a seperate argument that they in particular are not doing a good job at creating a Standard - go ahead. Now in this case, the standards body happens to be W3C. If M$ had its way, the entire web would only be readable with MS software, defeating the entire purpose of the web in the first place (as a standards-defined, accessible to everyone "superhighway" of information, yadda yadda yadda) There *is* intrinsic good in following the recommendations of a 3rd-party and widely agreed upon standards body, as opposed to following a proprietary one. I would (and will ) take argument with that statement. there is absolutely nothing intrinsically good about following W3C standards.
0 kommentar(er)
