Search Results

Search found 99 results on 4 pages for 'noscript'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/4 | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

  • FireFox/NoScript: why has the NoScript icon disappeared?

    - by Peter Mortensen
    Why has the appearence of NoScript changed? Using Noscript in FireFox (Microsoft Windows): Until now there has been an icon (the S icon) in the lower right of the screen. But now there is an button instead with the text "Options". Left clicking this button seems to bring up the menu as right clicking the old icon. Can I restore the previous state? Is there an auto-update function in NoScript and if so could it have caused the change? If it exists can the auto-update function be disabled? Platform: FireFox 3.0.6, NoScript 1.9.0.6, Windows XP 64 bit, 8 GB RAM.

    Read the article

  • Why has the NoScript icon disappeared?

    - by Peter Mortensen
    Why has the appearence of NoScript changed? Using Noscript in Firefox (Microsoft Windows): Until now there has been an icon (the S icon) in the lower right of the screen. But now there is an button instead with the text "Options". Left clicking this button seems to bring up the menu as right clicking the old icon. Can I restore the previous state? Is there an auto-update function in NoScript and if so could it have caused the change? If it exists can the auto-update function be disabled? Platform: Firefox 3.0.6, NoScript 1.9.0.6, Windows XP 64 bit, 8 GB RAM.

    Read the article

  • Noscript button missing in Firefox

    - by stevenvh
    Windows XP professional SP3 Firefox 13.0.1 NoScript Addon 2.4.6 I can't click Javascript links, like for opening a popup window (which I usually don't care about, but this time it was Important :-( ). I mention NoScript as I used to have a button where I could temporarily enable Javascript so the link would work, but with one of the latest updates this seems to be gone. I have "Block popup windows" unchecked and "Enable Javascript" checked in Options. How can I get the NoScript button back?

    Read the article

  • images within noscript

    - by Guilherme Nascimento
    Note: My question is not about javascript Note: My question is how to make the HTML accessible to search engines. Note: My question is not about hiding texts, is on block loading of images in order to use LazyLoad. I tested various techniques of blocking the loading of images to use effect LazyLoad (I'm developing in javascript), was the only efficient <NOSCRIPT>: The HTML structure that would, with LazyLoad loading of images is achieved via the viewport (visible area of the website in browser). <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, <span class="lazyload"> <noscript><img src="foto-m0101.jpg" alt="image description"></noscript> </span> consectetur adipiscing elit. </p> <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, <span class="lazyload"> <noscript><img src="foto-m0201.jpg" alt="image description"></noscript> </span> consectetur adipiscing elit. </p> <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, <span class="lazyload"> <noscript><img src="foto-m0301.jpg" alt="image description"></noscript> </span> consectetur adipiscing elit. </p> This is a bad practice for search engines? If it is a bad practice, you could put an example of good practice? If there is any other issue with noscript talking pictures, forgive me. Note: I did not find any doubts about noscript with images.

    Read the article

  • noscript tag appears even if javascript is turned on in IE8

    - by Gaurav Sharma
    ghost noscript tag more info here I am facing exactly this issue, how shall I handle this for Internet Explorer browsers :-( ? Explanation: I have included the following noscript tag in my application's layout <noscript style="background:#ffcc00;font-size:200%;font-family:verdana;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;font-weight:bold;padding:0.8em;">javascript is disabled, please enable it first.</noscript> Now when I view this layout in IE8 the noscript tag CSS is displaying at the top of the page without the content in it, making the layout look faulty. Please help...

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to make NoScript always allow .pdf files?

    - by Ben
    I'm using Firefox with NoScript to stop the bad stuff. I've also told Acrobat Reader to load .pdf files in it's own window instead of inside the browser (because sometimes it locks up, and then I would have to restart the browser). However, whenever I come across a .pdf file, I always get a new tab completely covered by the NoScript box. Then, I can click anywhere in that page, and NoScript asks me if I'm sure I want to allow it. Then, Acrobat Reader is launched in its own window, but the Firefox tab remains, and I have to close it. It seems like NoScript is getting in the way of Acrobat's attempt to just open the file without making a new tab. Is there a way to tell NoScript to always allow .pdf files (Or any other suggestion to make that annoying blank tab go away by itself)?

    Read the article

  • Is Firefox less vulnerable to exploit when running NoScript?

    - by PP
    The article titled "iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest" at The Register website discusses that Firefox can be exploited. I wonder if NoScript protects against the kind of exploits written about; or whether the browser can be exploited regardless of having the extension loaded. Any opinions? Might make this a community wiki given that it's not simple problem/solution post.

    Read the article

  • <noscript> not working in Opera 11?

    - by cappuccino
    I am testing my noscript tags which display content when javascript is disabled, this works in Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Camino, IE6, IE7, IE8, IE9, basically everything but Opera (I'm running version 11, not sure if its isolated to that version). In Opera 11 nothing is displayed... is the noscript tag not supported? and what is the alternative? Nothing surprising: <noscript>Please enable JavaScript.</noscript> Located between the body tags. <html> <body> <script>alert('Hello World');</script> <noscript>Hello World!</noscript> </body> </html>

    Read the article

  • Fixed JavaScript Warning - Pin to Top of Page Using CSS Position [migrated]

    - by nicorellius
    I am new to this site, but it seems like the right place to ask this question. I am working on a noscript chunk of code whereby I do some stuff that includes a <p> at the top of the page that alerts the users that he/she has JavaScript disabled. The end result should look like the Stack Exchange sites when JavaScript is disabled (here is a screenshot of mine - SE looks similar except it is at the very top of the page): I have it working OK, but I would love it if the red bar stayed fixed along the top, upon scrolling. I tried using the position: fixed; method, but it ends up moving the p element and I can't get it to look exactly the same as it does without the position: fixed; modification. I tried fiddling with CSS top and left and other positioning but it doesn't ever look like I want it to. Here is a CSS snippett: <noscript> <style type="text/css"> p. noscript_warning { position: fixed; } </noscript>

    Read the article

  • Using XML in a Flex Website to Improve SEO

    - by Laxmidi
    Hi, I've got a Flex 3 site called www.brainpinata.com that's a trivia game. Basically, everything in the site is pulled from a database-- the questions, choices, and answers. So, unfortunately, Google doesn't index my content. So, I'm trying to think of ways to improve the situation: A) If I took my database data and put it in an XML file which was in the website's root directory, would this work? Would it violate any Google policy? (The info would be the same as in the db-- so nothing shady.) Would I have to "wire" the XML into my site or would it be enough to just have the XML sitting in the root directory? B) Another idea is to use the noscript tag and load the XML content there. As I understand it Google indexes content that people who have Javascript turned off would see. I know Flex/Actionscript 3, and unfortunately, I don't know how to load XML content with HTML. Does anyone know of an example where a Flex site uses XML for the noscript content? Thank you. -Laxmidi

    Read the article

  • hpricot throws exception when trying to parse url which has noscript tag

    - by anusuya
    I use hpricot gem in ruby on rails to parse a webpage and extract the meta-tag contents. But if the website has a <noscrpit> tag just after the <head> tag it throws an exception Exception: undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass I even tried to update the gem to the latest version. but still the same. this is the sample code i use. require 'rubygems' require 'hpricot' require 'open-uri' begin index_page = Hpricot(open("http://sample.com")) puts index_page.at("/html/head/meta[@name='verification']")['content'].gsub(/\s/, "") rescue Exception => e puts "Exception: #{e}" end i was thinking to remove the noscript tag before giving the webpage to hpricot. or is there anyother way to do it??

    Read the article

  • How do I filter certain javascripts from running and not block them all on Drudge Report?

    - by jay
    How do I block this particular "auto refresh" script on Drudge Report from running in my Firefox browser? I have NoScript and AdblockPlus plugins installed, but neither of them explain how to filter out a particular script and keep it from running and leave the rest alone. I don't want to stop all javascripts from running just the one listed below. Any help would be appreciated. "var timer = setInterval("autoRefresh()", 1000 * 60 * 3); function autoRefresh(){self.location.reload(true);}"

    Read the article

  • Payment gateways and XSS

    - by Rowan Parker
    Hi all, I'm working on a website which takes payment from a customer. I'm using Kohana 2.3.4 and have created a library to handle the payment gateway I use (www.eway.com.au). Basically I'm just using their sample code, copied into it's own class. Anyway, the code works fine and I can make payments, etc. The issue I have is when the payment gateway is returning the user to my site. The payment gateway uses HTTPS so that is secure, and it is sending the user back to a HTTPS page on my site. However I have the NoScript plugin installed in Firefox, and when I get sent back to the page on my website (which also handles storing the transaction data) I get an error message saying that NoScript has blocked a potential XSS attack. Now I understand why it's unsecure (POST data being sent across two different domains) but what should I be doing instead? Obviously during my testing here I temporarily disable NoScript and it all works fine, but I can't rely on that for the end users. What's the best practice here?

    Read the article

  • How to validate my Alexa code <noscript> tag in Head section

    - by Naveen Valecha
    The doctype and HTML tag of my page is below: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+RDFa 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-rdfa-2.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" version="XHTML+RDFa 1.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml-rdfa-2.xsd" xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">

    Read the article

  • SEO - Does google+other search engines index links within <noscript> tags?

    - by Joe
    I have setup some dropdown menus allowing users to find pages on my website by selecting options across multiple dropdowns: eg. Color of Car, Year This would generate a link like: mysite.xyz/blue/2010/ The only problem is, because this link is dynamically assembled with Javascript, I've also had to assemble each possible combination from the dropdowns into a list like: <noscript> No javascript enabled? Here are all the links: <a href='mysite.xyz/blue/2009/'>mysite.xyz/blue/2009/</a> <a href='mysite.xyz/blue/2010/'>mysite.xyz/blue/2010/</a> <a href='mysite.xyz/red/2009/'>mysite.xyz/red/2009/</a> <a href='mysite.xyz/red/2010/'>mysite.xyz/red/2010/</a> </noscript> My question is, if I put these in a tag like this, will I be penalized or anything by search engines such as Google? I've already been doing so for some navigational stuff which required offsets etc. However, now I would be listing a whole list of links here too. I want to provide them here, moreso so that google can actually index my pages - but for those without javascript, they can still navigate too. Your thoughts? Also.. even though I have some links that appear to have been indexed, I AM NOT 100% SURE, which is why I'm asking :P

    Read the article

  • How dangerous can javascript be? (is noscript worth the trouble)?

    - by CrazyJugglerDrummer
    I have recently started using noscript (in addition to ABP). It took a little while to get used to it and can occasionally require some clicking when visiting a new site to investigate why the site's not working and where I need to allow javascript from. Is the extra security worth it? Some of the controversy is discussed here. I suppose it boils down to a matter of whether javascript is a genuine threat to your computer or not. Any thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • SEO - Index images (lazyload)

    - by Guilherme Nascimento
    Note:My question is not about Javascript. I'm developing a plugin for jQuery/Mootols/Prototype, that work with DOM. This plugin will be to improve page performance (better user experience). The plugin will be distributed to other developers so that they can use in their projects. How does the lazyload: The images are only loaded when you scroll down the page (will look like this: http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/lazyload/enabled_timeout.html LazyLoad). But he does not need HTML5, I refer to this attribute: data-src="image.jpg" Two good examples of website use LazyLoad are: youtube.com (suggested videos) and facebook.com (photo gallery). I believe that the best alternative would be to use: <A href="image.jpg">Content for ALT=""</a> and convert using javascript, for this: <IMG alt="Content for ALT=\"\"" src="image.jpg"> Then you question me: Why do you want to do that anyway? I'll tell you: Because HTML5 is not supported by any browser (especially mobile) And the attribute data-src="image.jpg" not work at all Indexers. I need a piece of HTML code to be fully accessible to search engines. Otherwise the plugin will not be something good for other developers. I thought about doing so to help in indexing: <noscript><img src="teste.jpg"></noscript> But noscript has negative effect on the index (I refer to the contents of noscript) I want a plugin that will not obstruct the image indexing in search engines. This plugin will be used by other developers (and me too). This is my question: How to make a HTML images accessible to search engines, which can minimize the requests?

    Read the article

  • How to dynamically insert a keyword in an Amazon Search Widget

    - by ElHaix
    Through Amazon Associates, you can create search widgets that have a place for a search term. In the admin, you can set the default search term, but that seems to be tied to the widget ID. I would like to be able to dynamically set the search term for the widget when it is displayed. How can I accomplish this? Note: I am referring to the following banner script: <SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_sw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=CA&ID=V20070822%2FCA%2F[PARTNER-ID]%2F8002%2F84cb1754-d9ab-48de-b96b-574927fa9599"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_sw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=CA&ID=V20070822%2FCA%2F[PARTNER-ID]%2F8002%2F84cb1754-d9ab-48de-b96b-574927fa9599&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.ca Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT>

    Read the article

  • Is hidden content (display: none;) -indexed- by search engines? [closed]

    - by user568458
    Possible Duplicate: How bad is it to use display: none in CSS? We've established on this site before (in this question) that, since there are so many legitimate uses for hiding content with display: none; when creating interactive features, that sites aren't automatically penalised for content that is hidden this way (so long as it doesn't look algorithmically spammy). Google's Webmaster guidelines also make clear that a good practice when using content that is initially legitimately hidden for interactivity purposes is to also include the same content in a <noscript> tag, and Google recommend that if you design and code for users including users with screen readers or javascript disabled, then 9 times out of 10 good relevant search rankings will follow (though their specific advice seems more written for cases where javascript writes new content to the page). JavaScript: Place the same content from the JavaScript in a tag. If you use this method, ensure the contents are exactly the same as what’s contained in the JavaScript, and that this content is shown to visitors who do not have JavaScript enabled in their browser. So, best practice seems pretty clear. What I can't find out is, however, the simple factual matter of whether hidden content is indexed by search engines (but with potential penalties if it looks 'spammy'), or, whether it is ignored, or, whether it is indexed but with a lower weighting (like <noscript> content is, apparently). (for bonus points it would be great to know if this varies or is consistent between display: none;, visibility: hidden;, etc, but that isn't crucial). This is different to the other questions on display:none; and SEO - those are about good and bad practice and the answers are discussions of good and bad practice, I'm interested simply in the factual 'Yes or no' question of whether search engines index, or ignore, content that is in display: none; - something those other questions' answers aren't totally clear on. One other question has an answer, "Yes", supported by a link to an article that doesn't really clear things up: it establishes that search engines can spot that text is hidden, it discusses (again) whether hidden text causes sites to be marked as spam, and ultimately concludes that in mid 2011, Google's policy on hidden text was evolving, and that they hadn't at that time started automatically penalising display:none; or marking it as spam. It's clear that display: none; isn't always spam and isn't always treated as spam (many Google sites use it...): but this doesn't clear up how, or if, it is indexed. What I will do will be to follow the guidelines and make sure that all the content that is initially hidden which regular users can explore using javascript-driven interactivity is also structured in way that noscript/screenreader users can use. So I'm not interested in best practice, opinions etc because best practice seems to be really clear: accessibility best practices boosts SEO. But I'd like to know what exactly will happen: whether any display: none; content I have alongside <noscript> or otherwise accessibility-optimised content will be be ignored, or indexed again, or picked up to compare against the <noscript> content but not indexed... etc.

    Read the article

  • Good maintained privacy Add-On/settings set that takes usability into account?

    - by Foo Bar
    For some weeks I've been trying to find a good set of Firefox Addons that give me a good portion of privacy/security without losing to much of usability. But I can't seem to find a nice combination of add-ons/settings that I'm happy with. Here's what I tried, together with the pros and cons that I discovered: HTTPS Everywhere: Has only pro's: just install and be happy (no interaction needed), loads known pages SLL-encrypted, is updated fairly often NoScript - Fine, but needs a lot of fine-tuning, often maintained, mainly blocks all non-HTML/CSS Content, but the author sometimes seems to do "untrustworthy" decission RequestPolicy - seems dead (last activity 6 months ago, has some annoying bugs, official support mail address is dead), but the purpose of this is really great: gives you full control over cross-site requests: blocks by default, let's you add sites to a whitelist, once this is done it works interaction-less in the background AdBlock Edge: blocks specific cross-site requests from a pre-defined whitelist (can never be fully sure, need to trust others) Disconnect: like AdBlock Edge, just looking different, has no interaction possibilities (can never be fully sure, need to trust others, can not interact even if I wanted to) Firefox own Cookie Managment (block by default, whitelist specific sites), after building own whitelist it does it's work in the background and I have full control All These addons together basically block everything unsecure. But there are a lot of redundancies: NoScript has a mixed-content blocker, but FF has it's own for a while now. Also the Cookie blocker from NoScript is reduntant to my FF-Cookie setting. NoScript also has an XSS-blocker, which is redundant to RequestPolicy. Disconnect and AdBlock are extremly redundant, but not fully. And there are some bugs (especially RequestPolicy). And RequestPolicy seems to be dead. All in all, this list is great but has these heavy drawbacks. My favourite set would be "NoScript Light" (only script blocking, without all the additonal redundant-to-other-addons hick-hack it does) + HTTPS Everywhere + RequestPolicy-clone (maintained, less buggy), because RequestPolicy makes all other "site-blockers" obsolete (because it blocks everything by default and let's me create a whitelist). But since RequestPolicy is buggy and seems to be dead I have to fallback to AdBlock Edge and Disconnect, which don't block all and and need more maintaining (whitelist updates, trust-check). Are there addons that fulfill my wishes?

    Read the article

  • Lazyloading images and SEO

    - by surpr
    Lazyloading images with a noscript fallback. Should I expect any damage in the SERPs? The site is completely thumbnail based. Also should I put a smaller image size in the noscript fallback to increase crawlability? We have nearly 1mil thumbs so it's a decision I'm hesitant to do. The reason why I'm thinking about it in the first place is because we're upping thumbail size about 50% which will add 10% of pagesize.

    Read the article

  • How to jump through an IP ad in firefox?

    - by chris
    I use firefox with a lot of anti-ad extension, like adblock, NoScript, Ghosty etc. I found this IP 220.191.158.69 always in the list of NoScript, I want to ban this IP. I have checked it, searched it. It is from China telecom damn Ad. I guess NoScript can ban this IP already, but When I do not allow that IP, sometimes a webpage can not be loaded at first time, I need to refresh two or more times. I hate it... So I hope there are some way or browser extensions or script can jump through this damn IP.

    Read the article

  • Any advantage to the script version of Google Adwords' conversion tracking code?

    - by ripper234
    Google Adword has an HTML snippet to track conversions: <script type="text/javascript"> /* <![CDATA[ */ var google_conversion_id = 12345; var google_conversion_language = "en"; var google_conversion_format = "3"; var google_conversion_color = "ffffff"; var google_conversion_label = "someopaqueid"; var google_conversion_value = 0; /* ]]> */ </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/conversion.js"> </script> <noscript> <div style="display:inline;"> <img height="1" width="1" style="border-style:none;" alt="" src="http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/conversion/12345/?label=opaque&amp;guid=ON&amp;script=0"/> </div> </noscript> It is composed of two parts: For clients supporting javascript, an inline script that sets variables, plus loading a reporting script. For other clients, an image tag. As far as I can see, the image tag has some advantages: It works on all browsers. It is asynchronous. It's shorter to have only this version, compared to both this and the js version. Any reason not to drop the <noscript> tag and just use the image conversion snippet directly?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2 3 4  | Next Page >