Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

guillaumepotier.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#51

Post by malandrew »

thejosh wrote: post #46
paulirish wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all intents and purposes, IE6 and IE7 are dead. They account for less than 1.5% of worldwide browsers [1]. At this point, seems okay to leave out. [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combine...

Sure you can quote stats all day, but it depends on your target audience. If you are running a tech website (such as HN/TC/Reddit/etc) you will see a HUGE portion of visitors using browsers like Chrome/Firefox and hardly any IE. However if you are building websites that regular people use they still use XP and IE7... so much so that it can account for 10-30% of your website traffic.. It really pains me when HTML fram…

Adding many lines of code to a library to support two browsers that have 1.5% of worldwide share and should die because we would all be better off if they did is not the right solution.

Those who still have a need to support those browsers should code up and release an additional library that adds support to garlic.js so it can be used only by those that need it.

In fact, it'd be great if every library added cross browser support for old browsers as add-ons to libraries instead of making them a core part of the library.

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#52

Post by ErikD »

skndr wrote: post #49
anothermachine wrote: post #48

Why is this a website feature instead of a browser extension, where it would work for every site?

I would imagine it's easier for a site owner to provide this than get everyone to install a browser extension.

I think anothermachine meant it should be default behavior in browsers. I agree, with the attribute to disable or enable this from the html it would be a nice feature for browsers to implement.

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#53

Post by RBerenguel »

guillaumepotier wrote: post #43
RBerenguel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a work in progress, but of course! I have many (many!) bookmarked pages with more libraries in my instapaper feed, some emails to myself and a few emacs .org files I use as buckets. I just decided to start collecting them last week and made a quick sweep-clean with the most recent tabs I had open and the few I had linked to recently: 1.1 Markdown 1.1.1 http:// attacklab.net/showdown/ 1.2 DBs 1.2.1 http://j…

Nice! You should gather that in a cool markdown file on a github repo that every one could fork and suggest / add their own good libs :)

Good idea Guillaume ;) (and great work here!) I think it will make for an interesting git for my almost empty repositories!

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#54

Post by ErikD »

RBerenguel wrote: post #32
pratyushmittal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruben, can you please share your "great to have" Javascript libraries list? It sounds promising.

It's still a work in progress, but of course! I have many (many!) bookmarked pages with more libraries in my instapaper feed, some emails to myself and a few emacs .org files I use as buckets. I just decided to start collecting them last week and made a quick sweep-clean with the most recent tabs I had open and the few I had linked to recently: 1.1 Markdown 1.1.1 http:// attacklab.net/showdown/ 1.2 DBs 1.2.1 http://j…

Anyone else ending up on a "UPVC Doors and Windows" site when going to http://jsunittest.com/ ?

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#55

Post by ErikD »

ceejayoz wrote: post #42
csmatt wrote: post #23

I was thinking about this the other day and I thought "How is this not standard!?" Good job!

It's not standard because people frequently do things like type a credit card number into a form on a public computer. Lots of potential for privacy breaches.

With and option to disable this behavior from the HTML websites could chose to disable it on forms which might contain sensitive data. Browsers could even disable it by default and let the websites enable using an attribute.

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#57

Post by strebler »

paulirish wrote: post #15
fruchtose wrote: post #5

I think the desire for this kind of project is very reasonably based, and it looks like you have done great work on most of the implementation. I have one gripe with it, though. It would be nice if the documentation mentioned that garlic.js requires an HTML5 browser with localStorage implemented. Remember, there are people who are still using Internet Explorer 6 and 7, and these browsers are incompatible [1]. This is…

For all intents and purposes, IE6 and IE7 are dead. They account for less than 1.5% of worldwide browsers [1]. At this point, seems okay to leave out. [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combine...

It depends on your market. In China, IE6 is still at 20-25% and it's even more if you count all of the smaller browsers that simply wrapped IE6 Trident into their own browser interface.

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#58

Post by StavrosK »

mattmanser wrote: post #38
StavrosK wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, what does jQuery provide that is so essential that someone decides to add a dependency this big for something so simple? It seems that everything requires jQuery these days, even when a 5-line for loop would do.

This seems to be the new 'cool'. Why jQuery whine, whine, whine . You've got jQuery on your own site. Why are you moaning about it? The source is here: https://github.com/guillaumepotier/Garlic.js/blob/master/gar... The code is pretty much idiomatic jQuery js following most of their style rules, layout rules and standard constructs so it's obviously been written as a jQuery extension. He must know jQuery well, hence…

> This seems to be the new 'cool'. Why jQuery whine, whine, whine.

This seems to be the new 'cool'. "Why jQuery whine", whine, whine.

> You've got jQuery on your own site. Why are you moaning about it?

It was a theme requirement, also, Tu Quoque.

> He must know jQuery well, hence why not use it?

Because dependency for 200 lines of code.

> Quite a lot more than the inevitable each that is also in there.

Then the rest of your reply was redundant, wasn't it...

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#59

Post by StavrosK »

vidarh wrote: post #37
StavrosK wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, what does jQuery provide that is so essential that someone decides to add a dependency this big for something so simple? It seems that everything requires jQuery these days, even when a 5-line for loop would do.

> It seems that everything requires jQuery these days And there's your answer: The "cost" of depending on jQuery is small since so many things depend on it that most potential users probably already pull it in.

That's true, I guess. I just don't think you should include large dependencies if you can easily avoid them.

Re: Show HN: garlic.js - don't let your users lose their form data

#60

Post by StavrosK »

seabee wrote: post #39
StavrosK wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, what does jQuery provide that is so essential that someone decides to add a dependency this big for something so simple? It seems that everything requires jQuery these days, even when a 5-line for loop would do.

Ideally this would be solved in a similar way as when you statically link to libraries in C - the parts of your dependency are pulled in and users don't have to worry about it. (There are other issues with this of course, but they are well understood by now that someone could develop a system to mitigate that by now)

The problem is more about the download size than the actual deployment (unless you mean using only the parts of jQuery you need, in which case I guess it would be hard to share between apps).
Post reply on HN