Netsurf 3

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Recently upgraded to Netsurf 3, and each time I go to 'choices' 'content',
Disable Javascript is ticked. Choices file says enable_javascript:1, so I
assume this is just a funny? I'm not actually certain whether Javascript
is working or not...

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Tony Moore]

On 29 Apr 2013, "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> Recently upgraded to Netsurf 3, and each time I go to 'choices'
> 'content', Disable Javascript is ticked. Choices file says
> enable_javascript:1, so I assume this is just a funny? I'm not
> actually certain whether Javascript is working or not...

You may have a jsoff development version, in which JS is not availble.
In this case you need to download a json version, from the lower half of
http://ci.netsurf-browser.org/builds/riscos/ , or the NS 3.0 release at
http://download.netsurf-browser.org/netsurf/releases/pre-built/riscos/netsurf-3.0.zip

The NetSurf 3.0 Change Log says:

Added early and primitive JavaScript support. (Disabled by default.)

Unticking 'Disable Javascript' <Set> should turn it on - it does here.

To test JS, visit http://javatester.org/javascript.html The Test Results
window is blank if JS is working, otherwise there's a fail message.

Tony

[Harriet Bazley]

On 29 Apr 2013 as I do recall,

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Recently upgraded to Netsurf 3, and each time I go to 'choices' 'content',
> Disable Javascript is ticked. Choices file says enable_javascript:1, so I
> assume this is just a funny? I'm not actually certain whether Javascript
> is working or not...
>

Is it possible you downloaded the _jsoff version?

(!RunImage for version incorporating JavaScript is circa 3700kb, version
without is just over 3000kb - I'm surprised, actually, I thought the
size difference was much larger than that.)

--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==

C++ - the language in which only friends can access your private members

[Chris Johnson]

In article <53440d9...@davenoise.co.uk>,

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> Recently upgraded to Netsurf 3, and each time I go to 'choices' 'content',
> Disable Javascript is ticked. Choices file says enable_javascript:1, so I
> assume this is just a funny? I'm not actually certain whether Javascript
> is working or not...

You are using the json version aren't you. If the jsoff is being
used, then js is obviously always disabled.

--
Chris Johnson

[Chris Hughes]

In message <53440d9...@davenoise.co.uk>

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> Recently upgraded to Netsurf 3, and each time I go to 'choices' 'content',
> Disable Javascript is ticked. Choices file says enable_javascript:1, so I
> assume this is just a funny? I'm not actually certain whether Javascript
> is working or not...

I had to click on default button before it would stick.

--
Chris Hughes

[Tony Moore]

On 29 Apr 2013, Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

[snip]

> _jsoff & _json are development versions. If you download the *release*
> version of Netsurf 3 it's broken. At least here it is.

What's broken, the download or JS? Both are OK here, but try
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/77062274/netsurf3.zip (NetSurf 3.0)

Tony

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <133c144453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,

If I untick the Disable Javascript that link shows JS works. Quit Netsurf
and load it again and it doesn't - the tick has re-appeared. As though
it's not reading its choices file.

--
*I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

[Ron]

In message <f0e42e4453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>

On a different matter, this version quits with 'filecore in use' on
RISC OS 5.18, I assume you aren't getting this in RISC OS 6.20?
I am using Privoxy to filter out Javascript, and have it disabled in
choices, so it shouldn't be the problem.

For over a year now !Netsurf has been distributed with an out of date
SharedULib module which stops any recent !GCC ports from working.

The machine crash is obviously a turn for the worse over previous
Netsurfs.

Ron M. Iyonix 5.18

[Jim Nagel]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote on 29 Apr:

> Recently upgraded to Netsurf 3, and each time I go to 'choices' 'content',
> Disable Javascript is ticked. Choices file says enable_javascript:1, so I
> assume this is just a funny? I'm not actually certain whether Javascript
> is working or not...

I have long wished for a button on the Netsurf toolbar to toggle
Javascript on or off and indicate its current status -- rather than
having to go through several layers in the iconbar choices. Surely
the user wants to do this on a per-page basis rather than for the
application as a whole. (Fresco had such a button.)

Submitted this as a feature request on the Sourceforge page, but so
far no response.


--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
>> "from" address is genuine but will change. website has current one.

[Stuart]

In article <mpro.mm1hq3...@ypical.nospam.invalid>,

Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

> I see the same here with the release version of Netsurf 3. It seems not to
> read the choices file which has that option set. Replacing Netsurf 3 with
> the latest test build gives the correct setting from the choices file
> without making any new changes.

Yes, you are right. I have been using the copy I obtained on CD at
Wakefield.

--
Stuart Winsor

Midlands RISC OS and Raspberry pi show, 13th July 2013

[Tony Moore]

On 29 Apr 2013, Ron <be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

> On a different matter, this version quits with 'filecore in use' on
> RISC OS 5.18,

I've just tried NetSurf 3.0 on RO 5.19 (22-Apr-13), running on RPCEmu,
and find that there is no error on quitting.

> I assume you aren't getting this in RISC OS 6.20?

That's correct.

> I am using Privoxy to filter out Javascript, and have it disabled in
> choices, so it shouldn't be the problem.
>
> For over a year now !Netsurf has been distributed with an out of date
> SharedULib module which stops any recent !GCC ports from working.

NetSurf 3.0 ships with SharedUnixLibrary 1.10 (10 Apr 2006). I haven't
noticed any problems with 3.0, or any of the development builds. Can you
give an example of a port which fails?

> The machine crash is obviously a turn for the worse over previous
> Netsurfs.

It would be - if the problem is caused by NetSurf.

Tony

[Tony Moore]

On 29 Apr 2013, "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <133c144453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,
> Tony Moore <old_c...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 29 Apr 2013, "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Recently upgraded to Netsurf 3, and each time I go to 'choices'
> > > 'content', Disable Javascript is ticked. Choices file says
> > > enable_javascript:1, so I assume this is just a funny? I'm not
> > > actually certain whether Javascript is working or not...

[snip]

> > Unticking 'Disable Javascript' <Set> should turn it on - it does
> > here.
>
> > To test JS, visit http://javatester.org/javascript.html The Test
> > Results window is blank if JS is working, otherwise there's a fail
> > message.
>

> If I untick the Disable Javascript that link shows JS works. Quit
> Netsurf and load it again and it doesn't - the tick has re-appeared.
> As though it's not reading its choices file.

You're quite right.

Tony

[John Tytgat]

On 4/30/2013 1:20 AM, Ron wrote:> For over a year now !Netsurf has been

distributed with an out of date
> SharedULib module which stops any recent !GCC ports from working.

I don't see how this can happen.

If you have the most recent SharedUnixLibrary installed for !GCC (which
is 1.12) then installing the one provided with NetSurf using "System
Merge" (see
http://www.netsurf-browser.org/documentation/roinfo#GettingStartedInstallation)
won't overwrite the 1.12. So how can this be an issue ?

John.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <faab754453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,

Is there a fix? If I go to 'download latest Netsurf' I seem to be using
the latest one. Test builds all appear to have 'jsoff' in the title.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

[Tony Moore]

On 30 Apr 2013, "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <faab754453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,
> Tony Moore <old_c...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > > If I untick the Disable Javascript that link shows JS works. Quit
> > > Netsurf and load it again and it doesn't - the tick has
> > > re-appeared. As though it's not reading its choices file.
>
> > You're quite right.
>
> Is there a fix? If I go to 'download latest Netsurf' I seem to be
> using the latest one. Test builds all appear to have 'jsoff' in the
> title.

Try http://ci.netsurf-browser.org/builds/riscos/ . The json builds are
listed in the lower half of the page.

Tony

[Ron]

In message <41a2764453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>

Tony Moore <old_c...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 29 Apr 2013, Ron <be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > On a different matter, this version quits with 'filecore in use' on
> > RISC OS 5.18,
>
> I've just tried NetSurf 3.0 on RO 5.19 (22-Apr-13), running on RPCEmu,
> and find that there is no error on quitting.
>

I dont mean with a normal quit, the 'file core in use' pops up after
Netsurf has 'found an error and must exit' window is closed.

> > I assume you aren't getting this in RISC OS 6.20?
>
> That's correct.
>
> > I am using Privoxy to filter out Javascript, and have it disabled in
> > choices, so it shouldn't be the problem.
> >
> > For over a year now !Netsurf has been distributed with an out of date
> > SharedULib module which stops any recent !GCC ports from working.
>
> NetSurf 3.0 ships with SharedUnixLibrary 1.10 (10 Apr 2006). I haven't
> noticed any problems with 3.0, or any of the development builds. Can you
> give an example of a port which fails?
>

I am wondering if there is a problem with NetSurf and SharedULib 1.12
as it has been out a long time.

> > The machine crash is obviously a turn for the worse over previous
> > Netsurfs.
>
> It would be - if the problem is caused by NetSurf.
>

Maybe there is another Iyonix 5.18 user having similar crashes?
I guess I'll have to go back to an older version of Netsurf to
find out.

Thanks, Ron M.

[Ron]

In message <kloa1v$kj9$1...@dont-email.me>

No I put modules in place manually. I can see when changes have been
made to modules then.
Maybe Netsurf hasn't been tested with SharedULib 1.12?

Ron M.

[Tony Moore]

On 30 Apr 2013, Ron <be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
> In message <41a2764453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>
> Tony Moore <old_c...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 29 Apr 2013, Ron <be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > On a different matter, this version quits with 'filecore in use'
> > > on RISC OS 5.18,
> >
> > I've just tried NetSurf 3.0 on RO 5.19 (22-Apr-13), running on
> > RPCEmu, and find that there is no error on quitting.
>
> I dont mean with a normal quit, the 'file core in use' pops up after
> Netsurf has 'found an error and must exit' window is closed.

Occasionally NetSurf generates a similar error when it encounters a
problem but, on clearing the error, I've never seen 'file core in use'.

[snip]

> > > For over a year now !Netsurf has been distributed with an out of
> > > date SharedULib module which stops any recent !GCC ports from
> > > working.
> >
> > NetSurf 3.0 ships with SharedUnixLibrary 1.10 (10 Apr 2006). I
> > haven't noticed any problems with 3.0, or any of the development
> > builds. Can you give an example of a port which fails?
> >
> I am wondering if there is a problem with NetSurf and SharedULib 1.12
> as it has been out a long time.

After reading John Tytgat's post, I checked my own installation and find
that, in fact, SharedUnixLibrary 1.12 is active. This was presumaably
installed by PackMan and, as John says, the subsequent installation of
NetSurf did not overwrite it. So I should have written that I've not
noticed any problems with NetSurf and SharedUnixLibrary 1.12.

Tony

[Chris Evans]

In article <6701874...@ron1954.woosh.co.nz>, Ron

<URL:mailto:be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
> In message <41a2764453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>
> Tony Moore <old_c...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Apr 2013, Ron <be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > On a different matter, this version quits with 'filecore in use' on
> > > RISC OS 5.18,
> >
> > I've just tried NetSurf 3.0 on RO 5.19 (22-Apr-13), running on RPCEmu,
> > and find that there is no error on quitting.
> >
>
> I dont mean with a normal quit, the 'file core in use' pops up after
> Netsurf has 'found an error and must exit' window is closed.

I think you mean it erors with 'found an error and must exit'
then when that error is cleared you get 'file core in use'

If so the first error is the important one, in fact I would go as far as to
say it is the only useful error. As once there is an error, subsequent
errors don't tell the programer anything useful.

Chris Evans

--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!

[druck]

Well there is your problem. Use the tools provided as with the
complexity if modern software, you don't know better!

---druck

[Chris Johnson]

In article <8961874...@ron1954.woosh.co.nz>,

Ron <be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
> Maybe Netsurf hasn't been tested with SharedULib 1.12?

I am using SharedULib 1.12 on the BB and have been for a long time.
There has never been any problem during intensive use of NetSurf
(normally recent development versions but I have also tyried v. 3.0).

--
Chris Johnson

[druck]

On 30/04/2013 00:06, Jim Nagel wrote:
> I have long wished for a button on the Netsurf toolbar to toggle
> Javascript on or off and indicate its current status -- rather than
> having to go through several layers in the iconbar choices. Surely
> the user wants to do this on a per-page basis rather than for the
> application as a whole. (Fresco had such a button.)

GOOD GOD NO!

Users just want web pages to work, they don't want to have to think
about what technologies are used in the page. They certainly don't want
the bad old days of Fresco where JS off = crash, JS on = crash faster.

---druck

[Steve Fryatt]

On 30 Apr, Fred Bambrough wrote in message
<mpro.mm1i1i...@ypical.nospam.invalid>:

> In message <mpro.mm1hq3...@ypical.nospam.invalid>

> Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> > I see the same here with the release version of Netsurf 3. It seems not
> > to read the choices file which has that option set.

I don't think that's strictly true: from what I recall when implementing the
choices switch, the option is read just fine but in "jsoff" builds the init
code for JavaScript clears the enabled flag regardless (on the basis that
there's nothing to be enabled). It sounds a bit as if 3.0 has turned into
some kind of hybrid, but I've not checked the source that it was built from
(or even verified this fault for myself).

> > Replacing Netsurf 3 with the latest test build gives the correct setting
> > from the choices file without making any new changes.
>

> Replying to myself (sorry) NetSurf 3.0 exhibits the problem, NetSurf 3.1
> is fixed.

AFAIK, "NetSurf 3.1" is just a test build.

I'd suggest that this question might be better asked on the NetSurf Users
mailing list.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

[Tony Moore]

On 30 Apr 2013, Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 30 Apr, Fred Bambrough wrote in message
> <mpro.mm1i1i...@ypical.nospam.invalid>:
> > In message <mpro.mm1hq3...@ypical.nospam.invalid>
> > Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

[snip]

> > > Replacing Netsurf 3 with the latest test build gives the correct
> > > setting from the choices file without making any new changes.
> >
> > Replying to myself (sorry) NetSurf 3.0 exhibits the problem, NetSurf
> > 3.1 is fixed.
>
> AFAIK, "NetSurf 3.1" is just a test build.
>
> I'd suggest that this question might be better asked on the NetSurf
> Users mailing list.

Since development of NetSurf 3.0 has ceased, and the problem doesn't
affect the subsequent development builds, there seems to be no point in
reporting this to the bug tracker.

Tony

[Jim Nagel]

druck wrote on 30 Apr:

Why then is there a choice at all of whether Javascript is on or off?

If there is to be a choice, then I say it would be handier to have it
on the toolbar than buried in iconbar choices. It would DEFINITELY be
handier to have a toolbar INDICATION of whether it be on or off rather
than buried in iconbar choices.


> ---druck

Hmmm. Wonder why your sig gets quoted. ;=)

--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk

[Stuart]

In article <klov6q$jnb$1...@dont-email.me>,

druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> GOOD GOD NO!

> Users just want web pages to work, they don't want to have to think
> about what technologies are used in the page. They certainly don't want
> the bad old days of Fresco where JS off = crash, JS on = crash faster.

I think you are exagerating somewhat. I found Fresco worked pretty well
and it was just one or two websites which caused "Type 5" errors. I was
still using it on a regular basis till about the middle of last year when
I felt that NetSurf could do everything better.

As far as JS goes, why do you think many Firefox users run "noscript"?

[Tony Moore]

On 30 Apr 2013, Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> In message <c6abb04453.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>
> Tony Moore <old_c...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> > Since development of NetSurf 3.0 has ceased, and the problem doesn't
> > affect the subsequent development builds, there seems to be no point
> > in reporting this to the bug tracker.
>

> Might be useful to get 3.0 fixed for those that only d/l the 'stable'
> release?

Good point. I've reported the problem to the NetSurf mailing list.

Tony

[Chris Evans]

In article <a987b84...@nails.abbeypress.net>, Jim Nagel

<URL:mailto:jimne...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
> druck wrote on 30 Apr:
>
> > On 30/04/2013 00:06, Jim Nagel wrote:
> >> I have long wished for a button on the Netsurf toolbar to toggle
> >> Javascript on or off and indicate its current status -- rather than
> >> having to go through several layers in the iconbar choices. Surely
> >> the user wants to do this on a per-page basis rather than for the
> >> application as a whole. (Fresco had such a button.)
>
> > GOOD GOD NO!
>
> > Users just want web pages to work, they don't want to have to think
> > about what technologies are used in the page. They certainly don't want
> > the bad old days of Fresco where JS off = crash, JS on = crash faster.

So why do so many Firefox users use a no java script plug in?

> Why then is there a choice at all of whether Javascript is on or off?
>
> If there is to be a choice, then I say it would be handier to have it
> on the toolbar than buried in iconbar choices. It would DEFINITELY be
> handier to have a toolbar INDICATION of whether it be on or off rather
> than buried in iconbar choices.

I also want a 'turn off graphic images' on the front page like Fresco.
In fact I couldn't find an option to turn images off anywhere!
Have I missed it?

I've found configuration/images disable animations

[Harriet Bazley]

On 30 Apr 2013 as I do recall,

druck wrote:

> On 30/04/2013 00:06, Jim Nagel wrote:
> > I have long wished for a button on the Netsurf toolbar to toggle
> > Javascript on or off and indicate its current status -- rather than
> > having to go through several layers in the iconbar choices. Surely
> > the user wants to do this on a per-page basis rather than for the
> > application as a whole. (Fresco had such a button.)
>
> GOOD GOD NO!
>
> Users just want web pages to work, they don't want to have to think
> about what technologies are used in the page.

Given that the option exists (and generally speaking, is currently
useful only in a small minority of cases, whereas keeping JS *off* is
more likely to lead to an alternative and functional page being served)
it is preferable to have (a) an indication of its current setting (b) a
means of triggering it locally when required.

Users of NetSurf *would* like to know whether JavaScript is currently on
or off....

--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

[druck]

On 01/05/2013 10:20, Chris Evans wrote:
> In article <a987b84...@nails.abbeypress.net>, Jim Nagel
> <URL:mailto:jimne...@abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
>> druck wrote on 30 Apr:
>>

>>> GOOD GOD NO!
>>
>>> Users just want web pages to work, they don't want to have to think
>>> about what technologies are used in the page. They certainly don't want
>>> the bad old days of Fresco where JS off = crash, JS on = crash faster.
>
> So why do so many Firefox users use a no java script plug in?

The plug-in is not for turning off javascript completely. It used to
ensure that only javascript belonging to the site your are visiting is
run, and not that from 3rd party web sites, to prevent web tracking and
malware.

---druck

[Dave Wisnia at home]

In message <ant01093...@client.cjemicros.co.uk>

Ahem!! Display ... images

--
With very best wishes
Dave Wisnia

[Theo Markettos]

druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> The plug-in is not for turning off javascript completely. It used to
> ensure that only javascript belonging to the site your are visiting is
> run, and not that from 3rd party web sites, to prevent web tracking and
> malware.

FWIW I find a plugin that runs only whitelisted JS is invaluable for being
able to browse on underpowered machines (Atom, 2004-vintage Centrino).
Without it, sites have a habit of running background JS that chews CPU for
no reason and doesn't leave enough for the rest of the machine.

Theo

[Peter Young]

On 1 May 2013 Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

That would be Ghostery, I think; invaluable.

With best wishes,

Peter.

--
Peter Young and family
Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52, England
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
pny...@ormail.co.uk

[Stuart]

In article <klrr2p$abj$1...@dont-email.me>,

druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> > So why do so many Firefox users use a no java script plug in?

> The plug-in is not for turning off javascript completely. It used to
> ensure that only javascript belonging to the site your are visiting is
> run, and not that from 3rd party web sites, to prevent web tracking and
> malware.

And for the same security reasons many would like the ability to turn JS
on and off easily in NetSurf. Initially browse with it off and only turn
it on if the site you are viewing need it and you are confident that doing
so will cause no harm.

--
Stuart Winsor

Midlands RISC OS and Raspberry pi show, 13th July 2013

http://www.mug.riscos.org/show13/MUGshow.html

[Theo Markettos]

Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 1 May 2013 Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> wrote:
> > FWIW I find a plugin that runs only whitelisted JS is invaluable for being
> > able to browse on underpowered machines (Atom, 2004-vintage Centrino).
> > Without it, sites have a habit of running background JS that chews CPU for
> > no reason and doesn't leave enough for the rest of the machine.
>
> That would be Ghostery, I think; invaluable.

ScriptSafe actually, but yes.

Theo

[Russell Hafter News]

In article <pHv*sT...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo
Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote

That does not seem to be listed as a Firefox add-on...

A pretty old add-on called Controle de Scripts is listed...

--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[Theo Markettos]

Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <pHv*sT...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo
> Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote

> > ScriptSafe actually, but yes.
>
> That does not seem to be listed as a Firefox add-on...

I'm on Chrome/Chromium, not Firefox. There's NoScript for Firefox, though I
think ScriptSafe has a nicer UI.

Theo

[druck]

On 02/05/2013 08:21, Stuart wrote:
> In article <klrr2p$abj$1...@dont-email.me>,
> druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:
>>> So why do so many Firefox users use a no java script plug in?
>
>> The plug-in is not for turning off javascript completely. It used to
>> ensure that only javascript belonging to the site your are visiting is
>> run, and not that from 3rd party web sites, to prevent web tracking and
>> malware.
>
> And for the same security reasons many would like the ability to turn JS
> on and off easily in NetSurf. Initially browse with it off and only turn
> it on if the site you are viewing need it and you are confident that doing
> so will cause no harm.

On/off wont give you that. It will be either site doesn't work, or site
does work with all the nasties.

---druck

[SG nws]

Theo Markettos wrote:
> There's NoScript for Firefox, though

QuickJava on Firefox has buttons for en/disabling Java,
javascript, Silverlight, animations, images, etc.

--
Stewart Goldwater
http://janusg.co.nr