<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
At the heart, isn't the valuable part of a web site the content.<BR>
9999.7 people out of 10000 people will not look at the source anyway, and <BR>
it seems to me that the most impact of obfuscated code <BR>
is brought upon the person who needs to maintain it.<BR>
Especially if the original maintainer has moved on.<BR>
This is my argument against customers buying flash sites, <BR>
since you will have to keep the same developer if you don't want <BR>
to rebuild your site from scratch every few years.<BR>
Some developers seem to think this vendor lock-in is a good<BR>
thing.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
<B>From</B>: Michael Potter <<A HREF="mailto:Michael%20Potter%20%3cmichael@potter.name%3e">michael@potter.name</A>><BR>
<B>Reply-to</B>: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts <ale@ale.org><BR>
<B>To</B>: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts <<A HREF="mailto:Atlanta%20Linux%20Enthusiasts%20%3cale@ale.org%3e">ale@ale.org</A>><BR>
<B>Subject</B>: Re: [ale] source code<BR>
<B>Date</B>: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:46:49 -0500<BR>
<BR>
<PRE>
I will also discourage you from obfuscating the .html/.js code.
Here is a little story about why:
I am dealing with an app right now that hides the source. This app is
for internal use and only supports IE6/7. If I could look at the
source I would be sending the authors fixes to make it work under
firefox and other browsers and making those changes myself using
grease-monkey.
Because I can not do that, I spent my time writing a whole new app.
Sometime in the future I will have the 20% of that app that does 80%
of the work.
I am sure that I could have spent some time to crack the way they are
hiding the source, but I think writing my own app was a better use of
my time.
</PRE>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>