I searched for the same on iOS and now use Brave as browser with JS deactivated by default, since it has the functionality to quickly switch on JS for the current site only.
Nice idea, might come in handy when sharing one of those atrocious news websites that want to show you anything but the news, especially confusing and unusable for non-tech people.
I used to use the "print view" page those sites used to have, but that seems to be a thing of the past, so this might be a good replacement.
Yes that's something I need to work on. Basically if you disable JS browser side, the browser ignores the <script> tags and loads the content of <noscript>
remove-js.com just strips out the <script> tags, so the noscript tag remains, it just doesn't know to do anything.
Can't see the website because of cloudflare issues. I prefer the whitelist approach to JS on the web using noscript. JS is by default disabled on any domain and I can whitelist domains temporarily or permanently from the extension.
I find it bizarre that so many tech-literate people seem upset by Cloudflare DDOS/surge mitigation. Like, it just seems so backwards to me that failing more catastrophically is somehow more endearing to these individuals!
The mitigation is more of an annoyance to many people since they have to sit and wait for 5 seconds for CF to do their checking before proceeding to the main website. Their DDOS protection sometime got me stuck in their DDOS protection screen, it looped infinity. Sometime no-cache reload will not work. It just their protection can be a fickle.
if your IP somehow ever ends up on the cloudflare shitlist and have to suddenly fill out minute-long captchas every time you visit one of what feels like half of all websites, you'll know why
• Use the correct base URL: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#document-base-url; this means largely “take the first base element with an href attribute, if it exists; if so, resolve its href attribute relative to the document URL; otherwise, use the document URL”.
The comment ID that you're replying to is included in the reply button. For example, yours looks like: reply?id=25277197&goto=item%3Fid%3D25276193%2325277197
Note the id element. Then, notice that the span that appears immediately before your comment has an ID too: unv_25277197. With those two pieces, adding a URI fragment is enough to get back to the right place.
I can't be the only one that feels the whole "no js" argument is flawed. Its like "yeah it's harder to do malicious things if I disable JS, it's also harder to do malicious things if I don't look at HTML at all!".
Feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I admit that JS brings a whole lot of simplicity to situations that would be tedious otherwise. The problem is that the maliciousness that can exist with js can sometimes outweigh it's usefulness.
Looking at HN, which uses js for voting, can be replaced with the olde-school form submission method (at increased page reloads etc), so clearly JS is doing us a favor.
But many sites we visit are consume only (blogs and news) and the rest are generally what we interact with only very infrequently (HN, fb, twitter). It's a rare site that actively needs js (excluding all those react/vue architected sites) that doesn't need human interaction on the first place (eg slack and chat sites that need streaming/comet server responses)
Random thought: Maybe we could investigate a methodology of "jit" for js in response to human interaction. Browsers already do this to limit access to the clipboard functionality. That is, js will run only if the user clicks on a button, etc, but is otherwise dormant (even document.onload would be delayed until first click). Anything else would require permission to run. Of course, this would break the web as it exists now.
> Looking at HN, which uses js for voting, can be replaced with the olde-school form submission method (at increased page reloads etc), so clearly JS is doing us a favor.
The JS here is is an optional enhancement that does the vote in the background. Disable JavaScript and voting still works, it just causes the page to reload. (Aside: it works by using links, but forms so that it’s a POST would be better.)
If someone else chooses to disable JS by default, it impacts the rest of us in exactly 0 ways, so what's the problem? Certainly you can see the potential upsides, better performance, faster load times, most ads won't work, less 3rd party tracking, etc.
I’m with you. I’m all for progressive enhancement, but beyond simplistic examples (like HN voting or fancy inputs that can fall back to HTML builtins), it’s very hard—and sometimes impossible, depending on what you need to do.
I think really it comes down to where you draw the line between “document” and “application”. A document should probably work fine without needing to run any additional code. For an application, I don’t think that’s a reasonable request.
Here's the thing: there are so many websites that would just simply be better without JS. So many simple blog posts that all the content is simple plain text and does not need anything beyond HTML and maybe some CSS. Us JS "haters" aren't arguing against web apps or interactivity - it's the wanton misuse and abuse of the technology.
By conflating our position with "well, just turn your computer off!" you're constructing a strawman.
You are obviously not the only one with this view. Perhaps you are feeling this way because you frequent HN, which has a vocal number of commenters who really want to turn off JS in everything.
50 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadOh, boy. This early? The link is on HN for less than an hour and the site already panicked.
I will have to make an iOS bookmarklet for this since Apple doesn't allow disabling JS on a per site basis.
[0] https://remove-js.com/https://medium.com/the-write-brain/how...
javascript:window.location.href='http://remove-js.com/'+window.location.href
I created it to help show clients how their website behaves without Javsascript support.
I used to use the "print view" page those sites used to have, but that seems to be a thing of the past, so this might be a good replacement.
remove-js.com just strips out the <script> tags, so the noscript tag remains, it just doesn't know to do anything.
CSS seems to break somewhat. Does hacker news rely on JS for CSS styling?
• Parse according to the URL Standard: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/
• Use the correct base URL: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#document-base-url; this means largely “take the first base element with an href attribute, if it exists; if so, resolve its href attribute relative to the document URL; otherwise, use the document URL”.
Note the id element. Then, notice that the span that appears immediately before your comment has an ID too: unv_25277197. With those two pieces, adding a URI fragment is enough to get back to the right place.
Is there a similar service to this where I can access these services like Netflix or Uber without being spied on?
Feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Looking at HN, which uses js for voting, can be replaced with the olde-school form submission method (at increased page reloads etc), so clearly JS is doing us a favor.
But many sites we visit are consume only (blogs and news) and the rest are generally what we interact with only very infrequently (HN, fb, twitter). It's a rare site that actively needs js (excluding all those react/vue architected sites) that doesn't need human interaction on the first place (eg slack and chat sites that need streaming/comet server responses)
Random thought: Maybe we could investigate a methodology of "jit" for js in response to human interaction. Browsers already do this to limit access to the clipboard functionality. That is, js will run only if the user clicks on a button, etc, but is otherwise dormant (even document.onload would be delayed until first click). Anything else would require permission to run. Of course, this would break the web as it exists now.
The JS here is is an optional enhancement that does the vote in the background. Disable JavaScript and voting still works, it just causes the page to reload. (Aside: it works by using links, but forms so that it’s a POST would be better.)
My issue is with people who complain that a site doesn't work without javascript. All I can think to say is "ya so?".
I don't mean to sound petulant, I really don't.
But it's one of these things that the general market has decided is optimal. Not for build sizes but for building in general.
I think really it comes down to where you draw the line between “document” and “application”. A document should probably work fine without needing to run any additional code. For an application, I don’t think that’s a reasonable request.
By conflating our position with "well, just turn your computer off!" you're constructing a strawman.
I guess, is going to break easily with the free cloudflare quota ;)