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. -- "I love the Pope, I love seeing him in his Pope-Mobile, his three feet of bullet proof plexi-glass. That's faith in action folks! You know he's got God on his side." ~ Bill Hicks -- 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/4e4dba89.5000...@gmail.com
