NoScript is available for Firefox Quantum. Read the developer's blog to get the latest NoScript status.
Works fine on the desktop.
I'll ignore the UI and defaults changes for the moment - even though I dislike them, they're not the main issue for me with the Quantum version of NoScript.
Under my desktop setup, NoScript for Quantum is horribly broken.
Even with NoScript as the only enabled extension, page rendering goes haywire as soon as any tab is loaded or reloaded. Areas of bitmaps from other tabs are overlaid onto the current tabs content area, which then flickers madly as this behavior is repeated for each attempt to render page content. When the page load is finished, the content area is an incomprehensible mishmash of portions of other tabs content, and - if I was lucky - partial content of the page which was actually requested. Hitting reload at this point just results in more of the same.
The only way out is to disable NoScript and restart the browser, but to do that I have to kill FF by PID since there isn't yet a Restart extension that works under Quantum.
A lot of people complain on Slashdot about perceived violations of the WP:OWN policy on Wikipedia. Yet I rarely if ever see links to diffs of edits that got reverted by an editor accused of exerting undue control over an article's text.
I don't know what to tell you. I was involved in 2003, and at that time I used a sort of web proofreading tool that used TIFF. Perhaps that was a feature of the particular tool.
Ah, that may have been the long-obsolete Windows-based client "PRTK."
All the "recently finished" links on the front page are broken not the best way to persuade folks you're not amateurs.
Those offsite links are valid, but not until after PG does its nightly cataloging run which places files in the correct locations on their server(s). Why they don't move files into place immediately on posting a text is beyond me, since it should be trivial from a technical standpoint, but since I don't volunteer for them directly, I can't respond to that. The downside is, as you've noted, that the offsite links we present don't immediately work. In the meantime, we promote our most recently completed works as best as we're able to, given that constraint.
I'm glad to see you've starting using markup to indicate bold and italics. But skimming through your Formatting Guidlines, I see a lot of bad stuff that hasn't changed since I was a volunteer. You still use 4 blank lines to indicate a chapter break. You still use that clumsy, hard-to-parse syntax to indicate side notes and footnotes. And you still hand-format tables! I couldn't find the instructions for entering equations, but I'm guessing you still use Tex syntax to record them.
Your suggestions would work better in a "professional" environment, but in a volunteer environment, they would fail because the learning curve is too high, and more time would be spent correcting difficult markup entered incorrectly. Realize that the markup used at DP is a compromise intended to be rapidly picked up by inexperienced people, and that it is an intermediate format which does not reflect the actual appearance of the end products, regardless of their final format, and especially the thousands of projects which have been produced in HTML.
And in this context "professional" doesn't mean "paid", it means "knows what they're doing".
I'm not disagreeing with your use of the term "amateur." Perhaps you mean to say you disagree with how we're going about the task (and many do, including currently active volunteers). That's how we learn to do this better. Over time, as we've learned how to do what we do, we've refined our workflow and software to be able do it better: a process which continues to this day. You might call it a distributed human genetic algorithm.:)
"All-volunteer" is not the same thing as "totally amateur." A number of our volunteers work in library science, proofreading, or other directly related fields.
I volunteered for DP for a few months. I got buggy TIFFs that my web browser couldn't deal with, so I sometimes had to work outside the DP proofing environment, which was a pain. (My suggestion that they switch to a more portable format, such as PNG, fell on deaf ears.) And they're still stuck on the idea that plain text is a universal format. There was no good way to indicate marginal notes. Both boldface and italic are indicated by all caps. And equations were managed with a subset of LaTex which I'm sure I mangled because I didn't have a LaTex interpreter to test it on in fact, the DP instructions didn't even mention that it was LaTex.
It sound like you last visited DP a long time ago. DP has been standardized on PNG as their page image format almost since the site's inception 7 years ago, though we do allow jpg as an alternative. TIFF has never been an official format there. DP has also been producing HTML, DJVU, and LaTeX editions of projects (including illustrations) for many years. We are not tied to plain text, although we do produce it as a minimum for our target repository, Project Gutenberg.
Markup for bold and italics is the same as HTML, and markups exist for and are used to indicate marginal notes, footnotes, and the like. You are welcome to argue that a more complex markup is necessary, but considering the amount of outdated information in your comments here, you may wish to stop by and update your knowledge of the the state of the site. We'll happily welcome you back if you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum completely broke noscript
NoScript is available for Firefox Quantum. Read the developer's blog to get the latest NoScript status.
Works fine on the desktop.
I'll ignore the UI and defaults changes for the moment - even though I dislike them, they're not the main issue for me with the Quantum version of NoScript. Under my desktop setup, NoScript for Quantum is horribly broken. Even with NoScript as the only enabled extension, page rendering goes haywire as soon as any tab is loaded or reloaded. Areas of bitmaps from other tabs are overlaid onto the current tabs content area, which then flickers madly as this behavior is repeated for each attempt to render page content. When the page load is finished, the content area is an incomprehensible mishmash of portions of other tabs content, and - if I was lucky - partial content of the page which was actually requested. Hitting reload at this point just results in more of the same. The only way out is to disable NoScript and restart the browser, but to do that I have to kill FF by PID since there isn't yet a Restart extension that works under Quantum.
A lot of people complain on Slashdot about perceived violations of the WP:OWN policy on Wikipedia. Yet I rarely if ever see links to diffs of edits that got reverted by an editor accused of exerting undue control over an article's text.
Diffs, or it didn't unhappen?
Ah, that may have been the long-obsolete Windows-based client "PRTK."
All the "recently finished" links on the front page are broken not the best way to persuade folks you're not amateurs.Those offsite links are valid, but not until after PG does its nightly cataloging run which places files in the correct locations on their server(s). Why they don't move files into place immediately on posting a text is beyond me, since it should be trivial from a technical standpoint, but since I don't volunteer for them directly, I can't respond to that. The downside is, as you've noted, that the offsite links we present don't immediately work. In the meantime, we promote our most recently completed works as best as we're able to, given that constraint.
I'm glad to see you've starting using markup to indicate bold and italics. But skimming through your Formatting Guidlines, I see a lot of bad stuff that hasn't changed since I was a volunteer. You still use 4 blank lines to indicate a chapter break. You still use that clumsy, hard-to-parse syntax to indicate side notes and footnotes. And you still hand-format tables! I couldn't find the instructions for entering equations, but I'm guessing you still use Tex syntax to record them.Your suggestions would work better in a "professional" environment, but in a volunteer environment, they would fail because the learning curve is too high, and more time would be spent correcting difficult markup entered incorrectly. Realize that the markup used at DP is a compromise intended to be rapidly picked up by inexperienced people, and that it is an intermediate format which does not reflect the actual appearance of the end products, regardless of their final format, and especially the thousands of projects which have been produced in HTML.
And in this context "professional" doesn't mean "paid", it means "knows what they're doing".I'm not disagreeing with your use of the term "amateur." Perhaps you mean to say you disagree with how we're going about the task (and many do, including currently active volunteers). That's how we learn to do this better. Over time, as we've learned how to do what we do, we've refined our workflow and software to be able do it better: a process which continues to this day. You might call it a distributed human genetic algorithm. :)
"All-volunteer" is not the same thing as "totally amateur." A number of our volunteers work in library science, proofreading, or other directly related fields.
I volunteered for DP for a few months. I got buggy TIFFs that my web browser couldn't deal with, so I sometimes had to work outside the DP proofing environment, which was a pain. (My suggestion that they switch to a more portable format, such as PNG, fell on deaf ears.) And they're still stuck on the idea that plain text is a universal format. There was no good way to indicate marginal notes. Both boldface and italic are indicated by all caps. And equations were managed with a subset of LaTex which I'm sure I mangled because I didn't have a LaTex interpreter to test it on in fact, the DP instructions didn't even mention that it was LaTex.It sound like you last visited DP a long time ago. DP has been standardized on PNG as their page image format almost since the site's inception 7 years ago, though we do allow jpg as an alternative. TIFF has never been an official format there. DP has also been producing HTML, DJVU, and LaTeX editions of projects (including illustrations) for many years. We are not tied to plain text, although we do produce it as a minimum for our target repository, Project Gutenberg.
Markup for bold and italics is the same as HTML, and markups exist for and are used to indicate marginal notes, footnotes, and the like. You are welcome to argue that a more complex markup is necessary, but considering the amount of outdated information in your comments here, you may wish to stop by and update your knowledge of the the state of the site. We'll happily welcome you back if you do.
D. Garcia
SysAdm - Distributed Proofreaders.