>We always encourage users to submi their feedback. However, those submitted in a productive way are usually more pleasant to read.
>
>The Google page, for the search engine, does not require javascript, probably, because it is very straight forward. When you access a full blown application Web site, there has to be something more than just HTML to make it run.
>
>So, basically, if I understand correctly, when you put a URL in a message, you do not want the site to hyperlink the URL, correct?
>
>And, secondly, when there is a YouTube reference in a message, you would like to have the ability to switch that off in your account settings, correct?

Good morning Michel

Somtimes messages in my night sounds to harsh. I apologize.
Also it's hard do to such stuff in a pleasant way - I'm not good at it even in german. :)
I realy like the way you try to include useres stimuli.

Forget the URL thing. I'm unhappy with it (I have tried to express this in the first mention, but to not much success) - but I can survive with it.
If you realy like to do something - inline code blocks that will appear as they are, or inline (colored) pre blocks or something to mark text and add tags or a keyboard-shortcut like [ctrl]+enter to send ....

For the YouTube - and the thumbnail pictures. Yes, I would like to turn that off for the messages I read, like the abbreviations. For the messages I create - there are three ways as I see. Keep it as it is, allow the poster to set the usage or allow the poster to control position of the stuff. for example ba placing it into a tag. The somehow unrelated placing of the videow on bottom is strange at least.

It's a bit like e mail. E mail is text. One can choose to create HTML pested e mail - but I the reader have multiple ways to turn that off and read just the text. Benefits are that the tracing trough linked pictures is gone, possible security threats through HTML javascript is non existent, niot to mention OutLook / Office automation, phising links are obvious.

Any automation that is noth understand down to basics is a risk. No bas about you or your team but argh you would need to be an security specialist to understand a problems with JavaScript - you would have no time to maintain this site. Since Flash is diminishing JavaScript is the main problem on web security those days. Understand it's not that I say you do something - but if your servers get hacked - again error by somebody else who does the software you or your hoster are using - and some nice litte stuff get injected we are done. Paranoia? Possibly - but there is a reason. Look around what security problems on basic tools we had over the last year.
Example?
You know that MS has a build in zip client? Sounds fine? If the zip contains nothing then a url it will open and run this. Nice idea for ransomware. Widely used by ransomware mail. Most AV will do nothing. MS is the only zip handler doing that. Simple way around? 7zip as default client.

It is clear that you can not turn your JavaScript stuff into HTML5 just by a flick of your fingers. But I'm frustrated to have this open. OTOH it's a nice site. :)

Lutz