Subject: [Tools-discuss] mail archives without JS

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:35:42 +0100

Hiya,

Carlo (cc'd) has told me that he's having problems with a discussion
in which he's participating as folks are using archive links like [1]
that require JS to follow. And his browser has JS turned off for
security reasons. In my case, I allow JS from ietf.org, but he's not
as regular a participant so it's reasonable that he does not.

There are non-JS archives for all lists still, (in this case [2] I
guess) but finding those is hard for folks who don't know where to
go. I think in some cases the WG page archive pointer only goes to
mailarchive.ietf.org, whereas in others (including rtcweb) you get
a pointer to the mhonarc archive. And of course finding the right
message in [2] when given [1] is time consuming, esp. if the message
is not on page 1 of [2].

Is there something we can do to make this better/easier for folks
who have JS always-off or disallowed for ietf.org?

I'm not sure there's a great answer here as mailarchive.ietf.org
does provide nice new features, and any good answer might end up
with "folks should look out for this and jump in sending a link
to the mhonarc archive" but I thought I'd ask as it is good
practice for people to not trust JS from what is to them just
some random web site when they're participating in an email
discussion on a particular issue but perhaps not following the
WG in all detail. (And that's inevitable for a WG like rtcweb:-)

One probably stupid suggestion might be a form where I could
paste in [1] and get a link to that message in mhonarc maybe,
or a link on [1] to the message in mhonarc somewhere on the
page displayed when one de-references [1]?

Thanks,
S.

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=rtcweb&gbt=1&index=VnStGD7Emmvc1-QOPRtY2cFF79E
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/maillist.html

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:41:32 +1200

The most important thing IMNSHO would be a rock-solid promise that the
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/WGHNAME/current/maillist.html
archives will continue to be maintained. For almost all purposes
I find them preferable.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:01:39 -0400

> who have JS always-off or disallowed for ietf.org?

Have a web site that doesn't require Javascript?

I mean, is there any desirable functionality that can't be implemented
on the server side?  Should we not classify mandatory Javascript as a
problem self-inflicted by the IETF?

I'm being a curmudgeon here, but my experience is that 99% of Javascript
is pure eye-candy and often the "features" it implements are as much an
inconvenience for the serious user as they are a benefit.

Dale

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 01:42:18 +0200

> inconvenience for the serious user as they are a benefit.

I disagree strongly with this, even though i run my browser with
javascript blocked by default.  Sites like
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tls/ make really good use of
javascript for those who allow it.

that said, i agree with earlier posters on this discussion that having
non-js mail archives available is critically important.  i want to be
able to send reference links to people without having to ask them about
their use of javascript.  And of course, maintaining stable URLs over
time is also an important goal, particularly for archival groups like
the IETF.

providing clear, predictable, stable per-message URLs should make it
easy to have a javascripty archive interface rewrite the address bar to
the relevant location.

thanks to all of those who work on maintaining the IETF archives,
they're a really valuable resource.

     --dkg

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 08:42:41 +0100

> who have JS always-off or disallowed for ietf.org?

IMAP? I don't believe refusing to use JavaScript on the modern web is a
practical choice anymore. It's a nice bit of idealism, and I appreciate the
sentiment, but the benefit of JavaScript is that it gives you a deployable
client for cases where a bespoke protocol or client may be unavailable.

In this case, there's a protocol, widely implemented, that gives the kind
of access that Carlo needs. There's thousands of tools available to handle
imap in numerous ways, at least some of which must surely meet Carlo's
needs. Archive URLs could even deference to html including the imap url,
although that is the weakest area of support.

Dave.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:03:08 +0100

Hiya,

On 18/07/15 08:42, Dave Cridland wrote:
> practical choice anymore. 

Well, reasonable folks can disagree. While it may be a relatively
small number, NoScript does have a base of users (including me). The
mozilla plugins page says that has 2.1M users, though I've no idea
how they calculate that of if it's believable. I would conjecture
though that we have a higher percentage of IETFers who are part of
that set compared to a random person on the Internet.

So I would hope that the IETF continues to be cater for the
javascript-intolerant as well as we do for the gluten-intolerant:-)

S.

> It's a nice bit of idealism, and I appreciate the

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:05:34 +0100

> javascript-intolerant as well as we do for the gluten-intolerant:-)

So you'd prefer to use an inappropriate tool inappropriately?

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:26:20 +0100

> So you'd prefer to use an inappropriate tool inappropriately?

I'm not sure what that means, but I wouldn't put it that way
for sure:-)

All I'd like is that we not forget that there are JS-intolerant
folks in the world, in this particular case in relation to mail
archives.

I am not asking that JS not be used, and in fact I allow JS from
ietf.org myself.

S.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:34:32 +0100

> I am not asking that JS not be used, and in fact I allow JS from
Really, IMAP is entirely appropriate for accessing mail archives in
near-realtime; this provides a secure access path with no code mobility,
and covers a very wide range of uses with existing tools.

How is this not handling people who prefer to run their browser with
JavaScript turned off?

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 10:38:07 +0200

> page displayed when one de-references [1]?

I'll note that the link you point to 
(<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=rtcweb&gbt=1&index=VnStGD7Emmvc1-QOPRtY2cFF79E>) 
has a link in the lower-right corner 
(<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/VnStGD7Emmvc1-QOPRtY2cFF79E>) 
that has the property you want (i.e., works fine without javascript). 
What we need to do is figure out way that biases people to use the 
latter link rather than the former.

/a

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:41:07 +0100

> How is this not handling people who prefer to run their browser with

The context here are mail archive URLs in mail discussions. I'm not
sure that imap helps really, even though doing the imap stuff is a
really good thing.

S.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:43:49 +0100

> latter link rather than the former.

Yeah, that might be as good as it gets. Or even better might be to
also put on the mhonarc link for that message (if that's easy, I've
no idea) and then somehow socialise using that one.

S.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 05:46:57 +1200

> sure that imap helps really, even though doing the imap stuff is a

I dare say there is an IMAP use case, so an IMAP-accessible archive
is a fine thing. But there is a use case for an HTTP(S)-accessible
date or thread based archive (when looking for one specific message
in a long thead, or for a thread whose date one vaguely remembers).
I need that much more frequently than any other kind of archive search,
and so far I have found the new tool too clumsy and slow for this
kind of search.

And no, I don't like the format of
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/VnStGD7Emmvc1-QOPRtY2cFF79E
as much as
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg14136.html
although both have some advantages over the other.

    Brian