[RESOLVED] Add gstatic.com to default whitelist?

[Tom T.]

As noted in recent changes to the NoScript Quick Start Guide, the use of Akamai as a third-party content helper server is declining, being replaced in large part by CDNs, "static" sites, and "img" sites.
For example, the Default Whitelist already includes YouTube and ytimg; Yahoo and yimg; and passportimages.net, for OOB new-user-friendliness.

The default whitelist also includes gmail.com, google.com and googleapis.com. These sites, and others that require that Google scripting be allowed, often require gstatic.com as well.

So the question is: Should gstatic.com be added to the default whitelist, for more OOB friendliness? -- knowing that power-users will fine-tune the whitelist to their own tastes and needs, anyway.

Thanks for all responses (especially Giorgio's ).

[Giorgio Maone]

So the question is: Should gstatic.com be added to the default whitelist, for more OOB friendliness?

Yes it should, and in fact it has been there for quite a long time now.
The relevant FAQ didn't reflect this yet, though, so thanks for noticing.

[therube]

(ALL of the named anchors appear gone from the page? Ah, quite right. It is now just a simple textual listing.)

[Giorgio Maone]

(ALL of the named anchors appear gone from the page? Ah, quite right. It is now just a simple textual listing.)

They're created on the fly client side if you've got JavaScript enabled.

[therube]

Heh. You're right. But who keeps JS enabled .

And it's what, cl.js that does that?

> Yes.

[Tom T.]

So the question is: Should gstatic.com be added to the default whitelist, for more OOB friendliness?

Yes it should, and in fact it has been there for quite a long time now.
The relevant FAQ didn't reflect this yet, though, so thanks for noticing.

Yes, I deleted all Google from default w/l, so used only the FAQ as a source. Thanks for updating the FAQ.