tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2863235049034941132.post3391134500847869102..comments2023-03-01T00:53:51.858-08:00Comments on aaronboodman.com: Content Scripts in Chromiumbootshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03885281513124696960noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2863235049034941132.post-25528268736113998422010-08-14T13:33:14.863-07:002010-08-14T13:33:14.863-07:00I would like to see a merge between the features a...I would like to see a merge between the features and API of Chrome extension content scripts and userscripts/Greasemonkey. Userscripts have the advantage that they can be used on a wide range of browsers, and I think more commonly, the user is concerned with improving the interaction with the web page, not with the web browser. Most of the Chrome extensions I've used could have been implemented as just userscripts, if userscripts have the ability to access cross-origin content.<br /><br />As the creator of Greasemonkey, do you think there is a way for browsers (including Chrome) to fully support its current features, with at least the same degree of security of Chrome extensions?hagabakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13713863899700508670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2863235049034941132.post-51457764793940970732009-04-14T00:14:00.000-07:002009-04-14T00:14:00.000-07:00All of the above shows lots of promise. I'd hope #...All of the above shows lots of promise. I'd hope #2, if done, might offer XPath support too. (CSS selectors might be some order of magnitude faster, but where needed, orders of magnitude easier to read than the matching code explosion of CSS selector plus extra javascript filtering code needed to do what an XPath expression could right away.)<br /><br />Am I right to hope that these sandboxes will end up a lot less toxic that Mozilla's (foreign unknown identifiers breaking your scripts, should they override them)?<br /><br />More normalized to how the normal BOM looks and works (for sandboxes that have DOM access)? So there is a document object that looks and behaves as it does in normal on-web javascript land, with all the DOM 0 APIs like object.onsomething event handlers that our grandparents used before there was a whisper of the W3C, and the like?<br /><br />(I suppose both questions might be a bit early to know much about, but it would be great to do away with some of the larger baggage we face in Greasemonkey-under-Mozilla.)Johan Sundströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04076097346172610543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2863235049034941132.post-32785080405990552992009-04-13T10:19:00.000-07:002009-04-13T10:19:00.000-07:00Great post. I really like your idea #1. I think th...Great post. I really like your idea #1. I think that idea #1 + some cross domain HTTP request support "firewalled" by a permission declaration in the extension manifest would allow developers to build interesting mashups and shield them from the complexity of extension/content script communication.<BR/><BR/>Note: this blog is great. It would be great to see if become a central point where all extension related information/discussions are broadcasted (because otherwise the forums+wiki is a little too hard to follow)<BR/><BR/>Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com