Forgive me if I'm wrong, but my sense was that a change or changes would be made with paucity of code and processing time in mind. It was an optimisation suggestion.
The actual question was "Question: can Koha operate properly with JS disabled? If not, why not?" Depending on the poser, that question can either be genuine and neutral or it can be leading and accusatory. Posers, you know who you are ;)
Is that 30 times rooted in fact? Also, from what is being described, it seems as though the long wait for the record's finalisation would be traded for a few shorter waits upon edit. Do I have that right Rick?
I think "30 times" should be considered an estimate. It depends on how much you're editing your record. How many times might one: - add a tag - delete a tag - add a subfield - delete a subfield - use any plugin What am I leaving out? Instead of having one longer wait at the end, you're having 30 (or whatever) waits while you're performing any one of these actions.
I'd reckon none of your clients would care if the job were done
And unfortunately that means none of them would sponsor it.
I don't think anyone was calling for a full sack of JS
I know some do! -- Owen -- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries http://www.myacpl.org