Hi Hiltjo, > What does it do exactly? I couldn't find a precise description,
So it purges the page from everything JS-related: <script> tags, <noscript> tags (ugh, this one bites,) on-* event attributes. Effectively making the page unable to execute JS while allowing the user/browser to execute it for their purposes. Contrast this with "JavaScript" option that disables JS entirely. A more familiar and simple behavior, but the one that makes Surf-resident scrolling impossible (as far as I researched.) Quentin, > My naive understanding is that the JavaScript engine is still active, > as it is for the webext context. > What this does would be to not execute remote JS code, only internal. Exactly. > I think that's fine, as this was kind of happening before anyway, > and if we can remove that IPC between main and ext through > ugly glib, the better. Not sure I get this one. Why glib? > - If we're going to have scrolling in main, let's remove the webext > entirely as it wouldn't be of use anymore (we can reintroduce it later > if needed). > That would mean altering the Makefile too, I could do it if you want. For me, webext is not only this scrolling-enabling thing, but also an example for writing one's own webexts. So what we can do is removing the scrolling code from the webext and leaving most other code (extension initialization, page creation, message processing) intact for one to hack on merrily. I didn't do this, because it's quite a far-reaching change that should better be discussed before implementing. > - Maybe it's not really useful to disable JavaScript (the original one) > entirely as it's needed for the core feature of being able to scroll. > Instead, we could substitute it for JavaScriptMarkup directly. This is my doubt too. I opted for a separately toggled option because it seems useful (to a paranoid like me) to have a master override like JavaScript setting in addition to *-Markup one. But that also means that one can accidentally disable scrolling, which is not that intuitive. But the course of action with substituting JavaScript for JavaScriptMarkup in user-facing code (-Ss option, config examples maybe) seems most sane to me too. Thanks, -- Artyom Bologov https://aartaka.me
