2011/8/18 Scott Ferguson <prettyfly.producti...@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? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cafxkjqmzrkey5nyf7l8rypxox3+6b5vnch7auz1c6iwzq8l...@mail.gmail.com
