Talk about add-ons and extension development.
Red strip means that page is blocked.. period. Doesn't matter if it has scripts on it or not. So, even if scripts on the page is 0 it will still have the red strip. White means the site is allowed. There is also a white with a smaller scrip to the right.. that means other scripts was present on page but was blocked because they did not come from the page that was allowed. At least that's the way it appears to work for me. I could be wrong.
Nop, here's what the feature page says:
I guess what you mean with white, is no red strip. I'm talking about the letter 'S' being white.
Ok guys, I'm sorry.
On a page that doesn't have any scripts, the letter 'S" is white indeed. I just couldn't distinguish it because of its blue contour and I thought it was blue. (Bad eyes...)
Maybe it should be green or something, now that I know I can distinguish them, but it would stand out more with a different color. Just a suggestion...
Color of "S" tells if 0 (white) or some (blue) <script> tags have been found.
There's no easy/quick/reliable way to tell if and how many scripts the displayed contains: the choosen approach (counting the <script> tags) gives a rough estimate of the "script load" in the page.
This shouldn't happen. If tooltip says "0 script", "S" should be white. Otherwise, there's a bug. Could you tell me the URL?
-EDIT- looks like the "bug" was in user's "bad eyes" - thanks hiyel for explaination
I hope I've been clear enough
Last edited by smsmith on November 12th, 2012, 2:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: edited to reflect quoted user name change - smsmith/moderator
Yea I meant white meaning no stripe.. sorry for confusion. I didn't even notice that the S changed color itself. LOL
mail.google.com would have sufficed.
In which case Giorgio the default should be changed to mail.google.com as the old URL is no longer used.
I (a Firefox user) am looking for a secure an non-annoying browsing exprerience, and I would want to use NoScript, Flashblock and Adblock/Filterset.G together -- the three major web-annoyance filters (or have I missed something?).
The FAQ states that NoScript can't be used together with Flashblock (http://www.noscript.net/faq#qa1_3). This seems to be the case even though "chrome:" is included in the NoScript whitelist (I just tested that).
Unfortunately, the Flashblock team don't seem to have the resources to refactor their code so that it gets chrome priviliges. Quoting Phil Chee, one of the Flashblock developers, from their mailing list:
(Is there any way for NoScript to tell which script is from Flashblock and which is not? .. Ok, you can probably tell that I don't really know what I'm talking about here)
Phil Chee again:
Phil also says:
Any thoughts on this?
Yes, it is correct.
To be even more correct, FlashBlock is "considered" by Firefox to run withing the "current site" domain, rather than in the privileged chrome.
NoScript leverages on the Firefox security infrastructure to guarantee that scripts are prevented from running (this, for obvious reason, is the most reliable and cross-platform approach).
On the other hand, for the same reason it is limited by Firefox limits and bugs.
As stated above, NoScript can't because Firefox can't.
The fact FlashBlock XBL lives in a chrome URL leaves hope for a solution if and when the Mozilla bug 236839 is fixed.
I see. Thanks for the response!
Yes, Phil Chee referred me to that bug as well (have you two been talking behind my back? ) and I saw you made a couple of comments there.
That bug seems very tricky.. Quoting Boris Zbarsky (29 April 2005), about fixing it:
.. (But this is perhaps better discussed elsewhere.)
Anyone know why I cannot block the script from GoogleSyndication.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests