Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Thanks for the suggestion. Is there a reason you prefer NoScript over HTTPS
Everywhere?
Original comment by jacobsK...@gmail.com
on 1 May 2011 at 7:28
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
If I can do the work with an addon I already use (NoScript) which is awesome
btw,
then why install an extra one, which would inevitably consume extra system
resources - there's no reason.
Original comment by rick3...@gmail.com
on 1 May 2011 at 10:54
I will look into how NoScript works for this, but I suspect they add items
directly to a database (unlike HTTPS Everywhere which allows importing XML
rules). HTTPS Everywhere works because we can just write rules without actually
touching their extension in any way (we just automate something the user would
have to do manually with a text editor).
Unless NoScript works the same way, we'd have to open their database and add
the rules directly, which is not acceptable.
Original comment by jacobsK...@gmail.com
on 2 May 2011 at 3:47
Thank you.
Original comment by rick3...@gmail.com
on 2 May 2011 at 4:04
So NoScript stores URLS in a string preference (noscript.httpsForced). It's
possible to change this from another extension, but I'm pretty sure it's
against Mozilla policy to do so (if not, it's still bad form to be editing
another addon's preferences). Sorry, but I don't feel like I can do much on
this.
I may look into basic HTTPS enforcement for HTTPS Finder eventually, but I
believe using NoScript or HTTPS Everywhere is a better option (due to those
addons having more developers and experience).
If you're still having problems with HTTPS Everywhere, I'd encourage you to
report the issues here: https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere/development.
Thanks
Original comment by jacobsK...@gmail.com
on 2 May 2011 at 7:23
Actually, what I can do is continue working on HTTPS Finder (there are still
some very noticeable bugs which need to be addressed). Once I am comfortable
with where HTTPS Finder is, I can try to contact the developer of NoScript and
try to get their input/thoughts on it.
It would be very easy to do programmatically, but I don't want to be editing
someone else's extension without working with them on it.
I will keep this in mind and hopefully revisit it in the future. Thanks for the
suggestion.
Original comment by jacobsK...@gmail.com
on 2 May 2011 at 7:29
You're welcome.
Keep up the good work
Original comment by rick3...@gmail.com
on 2 May 2011 at 9:05
Issue 61 is a duplicate of this.
Original comment by carl.ant...@gmail.com
on 27 Sep 2012 at 3:00
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
rick3...@gmail.com
on 1 May 2011 at 6:53