On 2020/02/17 at 02:31am, Dale wrote: > Dale wrote: > I been playing with this add-on and watched some videos on it. While > it does some things better, it just isn't specific enough for what I > need. In some cases, if I blocked scripts with it, some sites > wouldn't work at all or caused other issues. In a way it's better than > noscript but it still just doesn't go far enough. I wish adblock > would list elements the way it used to. That worked great because I > could block scripts on a individual basis. Allow the ones I need and > block the ones that cause issues.
I'm really surprised that umatrix (not ublock origin!) can't do what you need. As you note, it is much more granular than NoScript. Blocking elements at the subdomain level, you'd think, would be granular enough for most web pages. Are you saying you want to additionally allow / block scripts not just on a per-subdomain basis but on a per-individual-script basis? I've been using things like NoScript and uMatrix for many years, and I don't think even I would want to deal with that. How would you know which ones to allow? The Reg is showing 7, of which I allow 3. The Guardian has like 28, of which I allow 19. It would not be fun to try to go through all of those to figure out which ones are absolutely necessary. You'd be examining, allowing, and reloading 20 times per site, at first. Maybe the Tor Browser people would be interested in working on such an add on? -- Chris Spackman ch...@osugisakae.com ESL Coordinator The Graham Family of Schools ESL Instructor Columbus State Community College Japan Exchange and Teaching Program Wajima, Ishikawa 1995-1998 Linux user since 1998 Linux User #137532
