From 178d022c6aa926984a332400ec6536ba121d6261 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:00:13 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Updated Inline script tag filtering (markdown) --- Inline-script-tag-filtering.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Inline-script-tag-filtering.md b/Inline-script-tag-filtering.md index 3a5f9d9..db3f9c5 100644 --- a/Inline-script-tag-filtering.md +++ b/Inline-script-tag-filtering.md @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ My comment about this post: > inevitably causes a massive performance overhead -Notice the lack any data/figures for such an authoritative statements. Also by all appearances, whoever wrote this did not look at the code: the event listener which enforce inline script tag filters is installed **if and only if** there are actual inline script tag filters to enforce on any given page. +Notice the lack any data/figures for such an authoritative statement. Also by all appearances, whoever wrote this did not look at the code: the event listener which enforce inline script tag filters is installed **if and only if** there are actual inline script tag filters to enforce on any given page. Also, when script tag filters are present, it's entirely reasonable to imagine that whatever extra overhead inline script tag filtering may cause, it's very reasonable to imagine such overhead might likely be offset completely or more by the entire cascade of events **not** happening in the browser as a result of the blocking.