While I think could be a good idea, I respectfully submit that it should not be a priority /right now /

Then it has to be written down somewhere If it's not, it'll be lost

Roadmap? :-)

Like I said, the JS functions, /as it stands now/ could be much better engineered to not be a requirement, but an optional feature that anyone that has JS turned on could use - which hopefully is a large majority of the users of the program

And I agree with that in the long term, as per those "best practices" links I shared The point I was /trying/ to make was that it would be easier & quicker in the short term to simply enforce the added "JS required" statement programmatically, and to leave the rest of that "re-engineering" to 2 11 so it doesn't become the "just one more little thing!" that holds up the pending release

(C) is all that's needed to make things shippable for 2 10

Wait - so one feature request gets no priority, another (yours) gets so much priority that we won't even ship the product if it's missing? :)

I hope that your smiley there meant simply that you recognized the sloppiness of my particular phrasing, because of course I wasn't intending to suggest that the entire program would then -- and only then -- be shippable! I was referring only to the topic at hand -- that is, the program's JavaScript/no-Javascript (lack of) robustness -- and to the fact that if JavaSscript is currently required for some or all of the admin area, it probably shouldn't be shipped until end-users aren't allowed into the admin area without it

But of course, even that was an obvious overstatement because as you've pointed out, 2 9 was shipped with that very oversight, and no-one complained about it (Until now, of course (-: ) So, yes: we have proof that I should not write in a hurry But I hope that one-sentence overgeneralized lapse didn't kill the more articulate points of my argument

• I think the, "Javascript Required" text that Shane has put in is "good enough" for now

but it looks like it did

Oh well