InformAction Forums

aaronkollasch came up with the idea of using containers to switch settings less often (if I understood correctly).
But then it is advisable to remember in which container to open example1.com, example2.com.
Or you need to install another extension so that containers for example1.com, example2.com are selected automatically.
We need some way to remember the container settings (if you open example1.com in the "Banking" container, will the recaptcha frame be allowed? You have to open the container settings, and there might be a lot of sites in there).

What if:
1. in "General -> Preset customization" make the DEFAULT, TRUSTED, UNTRUSTED tabs uneditable.
2. rename the CUSTOM policy to INDIVIDUALLY. This will better reflect that it is applied to each site individually.
3. split "frame" into "frame" and "iframe".
4. in "General -> Preset customization" add two more tabs:
CUSTOM-1
All checkboxes are available. The user can mark for example: frame, font, noscript, other (softer than DEFAULT)
CUSTOM-2
All checkboxes are available. The user can mark for example: script, media, frame, font, fetch, noscript, lazy load, other (more severe than TRUSTED)
That is, in fact, repeating the "DEFAULT" tab twice, but with different names.

Cons:
1. two more icons will be required (but only for the permissions menu and the "Per-site Permissions" tab, the icons in the "#navigator-toolbox" remain the same).
Pros:
1. the user will not be able to "break" the presets TRUSTED, DEFAULT, UNTRUSTED. If he talks about "TRUSTED", then he means the unchanged "TRUSTED".
2. it will be possible to switch checkboxes in INDIVIDUALLY (current CUSTOM) less often.

A question may arise:
— Is this instead of containers or an addition to containers?
— I don't know.

fatboy wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2026 2:35 pm aaronkollasch came up with the idea of using containers to switch settings less often (if I understood correctly).

The purpose of Firefox Containers is to have separate stores of cookies & such, to isolate browsing in one Container from browsing in any other Container. Basically like running multiple separate instances of Firefox (like I do with disposable sandboxes) but without actual multiple Firefox instances.

What aaronkollasch did was to add support for NoScript permissions being different in each Container. It's not about switching settings, it's about being able to have different NoScript permissions in each different Container, since the criteria for "what is a trusted site, what is trusted active content, what active content do I need/want to run" can be different in the different contexts of the different Containers.

fatboy wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2026 2:35 pm it is advisable to remember in which container to open example1.com, example2.com.
Or you need to install another extension so that containers for example1.com, example2.com are selected automatically.

Yes. The official recommendation for this, and what most people would do, is use Multi-Account Containers. (I don't use it myself though.)

fatboy wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2026 2:35 pm in "General -> Preset customization" make the DEFAULT, TRUSTED, UNTRUSTED tabs uneditable.

That would just reduce NoScript's usability for no benefit. If TRUSTED and UNTRUSTED can't change, then those presets become unwanted bloat wherever their default settings are unsuitable. If DEFAULT can't change, then NoScript outright cannot be used in any case where the default DEFAULT is not a suitable default. NoScript would no longer be usable in an allow-by-default setup, e.g. someone wanting NoScript mainly for its XSS filter and also seeking functionality akin to the old YesScript i.e. block scripts from a few select known-untrusted sites.

fatboy wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2026 2:35 pm 3. split "frame" into "frame" and "iframe".

Why?

fatboy wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2026 2:35 pm Is this instead of containers or an addition to containers?

The interesting idea of adding two user-defined presets and renaming CUSTOM seems completely unrelated to Firefox Containers support.

> The purpose of Firefox Containers is to have separate stores of cookies & such ‹…›
CUSTOM, TabGuard, fission.autostart, network.cookie.sameSite.laxByDefault, network.cookie.cookieBehavior.optInPartitioning

> That would just reduce NoScript's usability for no benefit.
OK

>> split "frame" into "frame" and "iframe".
> Why?
That's how it was in "classic" NS, and I think it was right.
"frame" is familiar, native. "iframe" is alien, scary.

> ‹…› idea ‹…› seems completely unrelated to Firefox Containers support.
OK