[RESOLVED] documentation clarification

[charrington]

https://noscript.net/faq#qa8_10
says:
"Notice also that, independently from ABE, even if a certain script source is whitelisted in NoScript it won't run as a 3rd party script on pages whose origin is not whitelisted itself."
Can you restate this in normal-person English and perhaps give an example? Thanks!

[barbaz]

Can you restate this in normal-person English and perhaps give an example?

I don't think it's possible to say it in a simpler way, but here's an example:
Say you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page. You will notice that (by default) the NoScript menu offers you the possibility to Temp-Allow "wikipedia.org" and/or "wikimedia.org". If you only Temp-Allow wikimedia.org while keeping wikipedia.org forbidden, no scripts run because wikipedia.org isn't (Temp-)Allowed.
Does that clarify it?

[charrington]

Can you restate this in normal-person English and perhaps give an example?

I don't think it's possible to say it in a simpler way, but here's an example:
Say you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page. You will notice that (by default) the NoScript menu offers you the possibility to Temp-Allow "wikipedia.org" and/or "wikimedia.org". If you only Temp-Allow wikimedia.org while keeping wikipedia.org forbidden, no scripts run because wikipedia.org isn't (Temp-)Allowed.
Does that clarify it?

I only see message to temp-allow wilimedia.org, I assume because I have "temp-allow top-level sites" checked. But yes, that clarifies it. Thanks.

[Thrawn]

I assume because I have "temp-allow top-level sites" checked.

Yes, that is the reason. It's not exactly a recommended setting, because it means that you're allowing sites before you've actually had the chance to visit them and decide whether you trust them.