Talk:NoScript/Archives/2013

Compatibility with other Mozilla browsers

I know for a fact that Camino does not support add-ons, unlike Firefox and SeaMonkey. It does support plug-ins but not add-ons. As a result, Camino doesn't support the NoScript extension. Other than that, just about all the Mozilla browsers I've used support it. It may be important to mention this in the article. Mandanthe1 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NoScript could use a redirect.

As I tried to go to this article I forgot the fact the NoScript lacks a space between No and Script and wound up at the search function instead. Therefore I believe we should add a redirect from "No Script" to "NoScript." Rengaw01 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also to note, when the firefox 3 website was just released... this script was not found when searching for NoScript (Without spaces) on the mozilla add-ons site and could not be found unless using Google search or by using the word Script. This was since fixed. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

in-text references

I don't think this article can have "in-text" references. Plus, the in-text wikipedia link in that template redirect to a non-existent section within the citing sources page, and searching for in-t (or in-text) results in no matches on that page. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism - JavaScript

Most webpages offer a no javascript section of their website (which may be notable as a bullet under that remark). However, most people who make websites don't know it is highly recommended to have such a thing. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've found that very few offer a no-JS version. As your second sentence notes, most site designers aren't aware of the dangers and don't care. Usually, you get a dire warning "You must enable JavaScript in your browser to use all of the functions of this site". Hence the benefit of NoScript in being able to allow selectively and disallow others on the page that you don't need, or from sources that you don't trust. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

the question should be: is javascript really needed or is the site workable with pure HTML and CSS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.152.172 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent point! For example, http://www.grc.com "updated" its site with JS dropdown menus, then changed that to CSS after people noted the irony that the site's owner, Steve Gibson, writes and lectures on security, including the dangers of scripting. Check the page -- it works fine using just CSS, as you said. Can you write to other webmasters and persuade them to go this route? Thanks for stopping by! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Web designers are well aware that many users disable JS. In fact, most of them go out of their way to make sure that their web pages do not work without JS. I've seen websites that put the text of a web page in a

element that is hidden by default and enabled only with JS. The reason for this is that they use JS to track and spy on their users, and to push annoying features, like moving ads and changing graphics. 98% of web designers are ethically-challenged.Bostoner (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusing NS menu

Although the NS dropdown menu seems to list all of the script providers for any particular page, it is often unclear whether any particular entry indicates the domain status, or a corrective option. It does not cleanly organize the list of relevant script domains, and mixes recently & repeatedly blocked, forbidden, temporarily and permanently allowed, trusted, and untrusted sites. It also does not distinguish between the scripts on separate tabs. Therefor, a concerned user may memorize the quality of the many 3rd party sites, and look in Tools menu - Web - Page Source (Ctrl+U), for the script links, to decide which are necessary for site function, and of those, which deserve permission.
Wikidity (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This place is for discussion of improvement of the article. NoScript homepage will have instructions where to ask for improvements of the program. Richiez (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Downloadable blacklists?

Are there any updateable blacklists that we can download, like it is the case with some other software like anti-spam, anti-virus, etc. Instead of entering by hand every time? --74.57.253.67 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why you need a blacklist? It blocks all and you can allow things that you trust(known as whitelisting). --213.168.121.43 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may clarify the above reply, with NoScript, the entire Internet is blacklisted by default. Only those scripts that you wish to allow are allowed. For sites you visit regularly, you can add them to your whitelist automatically by clicking "Allow example.com". You will never again be bothered about that script or about that site (unless the site or its advertisers add new scripts). If it's a one-time visit, you might use "Temporarily allow example.com". But your regular sites do not need to be entered by hand every time. Hope this helps. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, doesn't help. I made my own untrusted blacklist as described in the article, because whitelisting is too annoying. So, are there any downloadable blacklists (similar to Adblock Plus for example)? --134.147.163.247 (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are (look in the NoScript forums), though I would not use such a list for now. They are probably reasonable safe but will allow anything that is not considered dangerous. There are still reasons why you want to blacklist sites even if they are not dangerous - resource usage, annoying features, privacy concerns, silly stuff executing in the background without your knowledge. Richiez (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Just wondering about the grammar of this phrase:

"Allow"ed or "Temporary allow"ed sites.

My grammar isn't great either, so I'm not sure what it should be, but that doesn't look right. Maybe:

"Allow[ed]" or "Temporary allow[ed]" sites.

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.37.212 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your wondering is entirely correct. Fixed it, and also gave the page a light going-over for other minor glitches. Thanks for catching that!

Perhaps you'd consider registering at Wikipedia and helping to edit pages? Don't worry if your grammar isn't great -- there are always people who are good at grammar who can help you out or copy-edit your contributions. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Popularity

I think it may be a valuable edition to the wiki to note how popular the add-on is. Are there statistics out there of how many percent of Firefox users have NoScript installed, for example? 68.183.110.79 (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising Tag

This page is tagged as being written like an advertisement, but it seems neutral enough to me. Mr. Shoeless (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

it's open-source and free, how can something sound like an advert when it's not-for-profit? Markthemac (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Promotional/non-neutral point of view tone are against Wikipedia guidelines whether it is allegedly "not for profit" or noncommercial. Whether a specific person calls it "advertising" or "promotion" or "advocacy" (as political promoters like to call it) or "education" (as not-for-profits like to call their promotions when they are claiming to be apolitical) doesn't change what it actually is. {{Fanpov}} also exists. --Closeapple (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FSF, NoScript and nontrivial nonfree JavaScript

Recently i came across fsf.org and found out that they seek for programmer, who can modify NoScript, so it will detect nontrivial and nonfree JavaScript. It is mentioned on FSF's "outstanding tasks" page. Should it be mentioned?

• http://www.fsf.org/tasks/noscript - Outstanding task
• http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html - GNU Project's view on the issue

--Sindikat (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)