Re: Re: A Little Something.

2008/5/13 Stut <stuttle@gmail.com>: > On 13 May 2008, at 09:04, Peter Ford wrote: > > > I think the onus is on the coders of Urchin to document how to avoid > errors when Javascript is disabled, not the site developer who uses it. > > > > Just to repeat a point I made yesterday which was clearly either > misunderstood or ignored... Urchin *will not* cause Javascript errors if > Javascript is disabled. Odd though it may seem, it's actually not possible > to write Javascript code that will cause Javascript errors if Javascript is > disabled. > > If you choose to use an addon that disables some Javascript but not all of > it you need to be willing to live with the errors that may cause. While I completely agree with everything you say there, I do think there is a point to the other side side of the argument as well; It *is* sloppy practice to assume that some resource has already been initialised without checking, especially when you're relying on a third-party script. This is a pretty trivial case, but it is a really good habit to get into. -robin