On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:53:43 +0100, Sacha wrote
(in article ):

On 26/8/08 10:49, in article ,
"Charlie Pridham" wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 26/8/08 00:07, in article , "Janet
Tweedy"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes


Is that remark about Java Script serious?



Yes Sacha as on this computer it isn't up to date, something to do with
conflicting with something of Tom' I believe. So maybe that's it ...

Seems I'm not the only one

I discussed this with a few people when we were making our web site and in
the end with a relative with a pretty whizzy site who is in advertising.
While some are still distrustful of Java, the modern (!) consensus seems to
be that it's here and it's not going away and it's fine. I imagine we all
have to adjust poco a poco because not all of the people can be pleased all
of the time!


I have mine switched off but am prompted to allow it if the site requires
it, so if I go to say your new site I can say yes if I want it but if I
am generally looking via google it stops a lot of nonesense being
inflicted on me I was not actually expecting it. It would explain the
different experiences.

Yes, it explains why Janet wasn't seeing that Salvia collection in the same
way I was. When our new site was designed I (briefly) discussed the Java
issue with the site builder and he in turn discussed it with site
designers/builders he works with. I'm hopeless at understanding the techie
side of these things but the general consensus of their opinions was that
most sites use Java now.



Polite cough. Just a small correction :-)
Java is not the same thing as Java Script: Java is a programming language but
JavaScript is a scripting language. You are talking about JavaScript, NOT
Java.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Posted through the usenet newsgroup uk.rec.gardening