- From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:18:24 +0300
Technically there was a time/way to tell gecko not to support frames. There was a time when i played w/ that support while we were spidering. Browser.frames.enabled / default / boolean / true. It seems to work as of a nightly from aug 13 (iirc it requires a restart. I'd suggest using a distinct profile). I think i remember hitting the script issue in testing, but as it wasn't a primary task we didn't push to fix it. It should be fixed, but i'd understand someone asking for tests.... On 8/22/08, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: > Jo?o Eiras wrote: >> On , Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: >> (...) >>> >>> Here is the list of elements that we *don't* execute scripts inside of >>> in firefox: >>> >>> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/base/src/nsScriptElement.cpp#148 >>> >>> >>> >>> i.e. <iframe>, <noframes>, <noembed> >>> >>> Everywhere else we do execute the script. >>> >>> The reason these elements ended up at the list is in bugs >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5847 >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26669 >>> >>> / Jonas >> >> >> I kind of agree with iframe and noembed, but noframes ? >> noframes, IMO, it fairly legitimate, because you can have scripts >> providing fallback, or redirecting to another page. > > Yes, we would presumably run scripts in <noframes> if we didn't have > frame support. There is even a comment in the code that says that we > should not check for noscript if we ever add the ability to turn off > frame support. > > / Jonas > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 16:18:24 UTC