Yes, I know that. I can read. The presence of a red NS Icon
at the demo indicated that something is being blocked. Can you read my previous post, and read the color-coding on the NS icon when the root's scripts are blocked?
(don't mean that to be as snide as it sounded, sorry, but I thought I was clear on which site the demo was and how toggling the NS permissions, thus toggling the color of the NS logo, toggled the effectiveness of the demo.
)
The site in question wasn't even a subdomain, but rather, a subfolder of the root.
See
this topic for the opposite side of the coin: Allowing such subfolders while prohibiting the root. It required a regexp in ABE. Clearly, all subfolders are running the root's script, which is why that poster needed ABE to block all script except a specific subfolder. It stands to reason that one would expect the root's scripts to run at subfolders, else that other poster couldn't have succeeded in allowing one while blocking others. If the subfolder wouldn't run the root's scripts by default, s/he has nothing to work with, in ABE or elsewhere.
Viewing the source of that link, I see no scripts. NoScript agrees: the NoScript icon displays a white S, which means that there are no scripts on that page.
As said previously, disallow the root's script, and note that the NS icon is red AT THE DEMO -- with that being the only tab/window open from that root.
Clearly, something is being blocked -- *and the demo fails*.
Frankly, I don't see any indication that the page "knows" anything about the other pages on the site, and the fact that they use scripts is irrelevant here.
Apparently, not so.
Did you read the quote about the capabilities of xlink XML?
Alan Baxter wrote:This would be a really good time for Giorgio to explain why he is requiring scripts to be allowed even if all the restrictions in NoScript > Embeddings are unchecked.
I figured that at some point, Giorgio would chime in and tell us the exact mechanism by which the demo page calls the root's script, without an obvious call in the source code.
We were trying to figure that out ourselves. WAG and SWAG are colloquialisms of modesty, much as "IMHO". I did not make a wild guess; I examined the evidence, *researched the xlink portion of xml*, and made what I thought were *very* educated hypotheses (not guesses), which Giorgio or someone else who knows can confirm/deny.
This is a method of learning. It's how I learned much of what I know in IT and in the many other fields in which Your Humble Polymathic Servant has some degree of knowledge. "Most of my learning occurred after graduation."
We could have just asked Giorgio in the first place, but
a) Hate to waste his time if we can nail it ourselves, or among the community, and
b) Getting one's fingernails dirty, digging around under the hood, often gives more complete and longer-retained knowledge than just asking someone. WFM, YMMV.
(trimming C:\WINDOWS from 4+ GB to 180 MB over two years was quite a learning experience, as it necessarily involved some dissection of the OS and its functions.)
Cheers.
ETA: Your most recent message was posted while I was composing this long one.
