On Nov 29, 2007 3:13 PM, Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 29, 2007 2:03 PM, Stephen Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does NoScript defeat all js from functioning yet allow the page to > render in > > your browser? > > It's a little more fine-grained than that: it lets you pick which > domains supplying js to the current page you want to enable. So you > may allow gmail.com and disallow doubleclick.com, for example. Or > disallow all javascript, my preferred default setting. Good web sites > should handle this gracefully. This is a policy of "I prefer not to > let you run code inside my browser until we know each other a little > better." > > > I need to have AJAX work but I want to defeat actions to my machine. I > > consider AJAX to be actions to the website on my behalf. > > Well, that's certainly the "Stephen Russell definition" of AJAX :) I > don't believe that there is such a clear delineation between AJAXian > behavior and other Javascript behaviors, and I don't believe, though I > could be wrong, that NoScript give you that fine a control. > > Thanks. I'll have to get it for my current system and check it out. I know that I had it and it chirped all the time that "they" were using js.
I am between design sessions heading for an interview. Thanks. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
