[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT questions about noscript and notscript



2011/8/18 Scott Ferguson <prettyfly.productions@gmail.com>:
> On 19/08/11 04:01, Paul E Condon wrote:
>> I'm curious about the differences between noscript and notscript.
>> I ask here because this is the list on which I discovered the
>> existence of (and the need for) these add-ons to web browsers.
>
> <quote>
> NotScripts uses a unique and novel method to provide this “NoScript”
> like functionality in Google Chrome that was not previously possible. It
> introduces a break through technique of intelligent HTML5 storage
> caching to over come the limitations in Google Chrome that prevented an
> extension like this from being made before. This is one of the key
> extensions that many people have been waiting for since Google Chrome
> came out.
>
> NotScripts is inspired by the “NoScript” addon for Firefox and seeks to
> emulate it within the limitations of the Google Chrome extensions
> API</quote>:-
> http://optimalcycling.com/other-projects/notscripts/
>
> NOTE: "unique" and "novel" are sometimes synonyms for "interesting" and
> "unusual".
> eg. Setting yourself on fire is a unique, novel, and interesting way of
> seeing in the dark.
>
>>
>> 1. There seems not to be a direct, feature for feature add-on to
>> Chrome that corresponds to noscript for Iceweasel. Correct?
>
> Yes.
>
> Apparently - "The reason is very simple: Chrome is still lacking the
> required infrastructure for selective script disablement and object
> blocking.":-
> http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/
>
>
>>
>> 2. Setup of notscript involves choosing a rather long password.
>> There is no such requirement in noscript for iceweasel. Correct?
>
> Correct.
> Noscript uses other, less novel and unique methods of keeping the
> blocking rules from being read or altered by site scripts
>
> Refs:-
> http://noscript.net/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript
>
>>
>> 3. Is this difference because there features in chrome that have
>> no analog in iceweasel, and blocking these requires something
>> extra? <snipped>
>
> Yes. (and Opera, where notscript is also used)
> Refs:-
> http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/
>
>>
>> It seems one needs to have quite a long password (>20char). But
>> one can be somewhat relaxed about the way it is stored. Correct?
>
> Yes
>
>> Is there a discussion of this situation somewhere that is written
>> in natural language English?
>
> Barely.
>
> Where?
>
> [Readable]
> http://www.ghacks.net/2010/08/18/notscript-brings-noscript-functionality-to-google-chrome/
> [Official gibberish] http://optimalcycling.com/other-projects/notscripts/
>
>>
>> I come to this question being with a mostly obsolete vocabulary
>> of words about the Internet. Is there a well maintained glossary
>> of terms somewhere? One that includes historical usage as well
>> as the most recent buzz? (so I can track new vs. what was once
>> new, long ago)
>
> Too hard. Pass :-)
>
>>
>>
>> TIA
>
> Hope that helps answer the questions you asked.
>
> To the questions you failed to ask:-
> Does Notscript work?, Why not? and Why bother? the answers are:-
> ;"barely" (for the moment)*1
> ; "Maybe because Chrome is a Google product, and you viewing
> advertisements is part of Google's core business".
> ;"I have no idea"
>
> Cheers
>
> [*1] It's a css look-a-like hack.
>

Some people think that both, could be a security risk, because they
run under java, Is not it?


Reply to: