[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkey: an Historical Perspective

Matthew Gertner matthew at allpeers.com
Mon Apr 18 19:26:20 EDT 2005


> > I've never felt so empowered as
> > a programmer.
> If you have a purely web focus.

I do.

> Hmm, I see GM as a *great* tool for 'structured content apologists'
> such as you clearly are. Perhaps you're thinking a little too Human
> Interaction oriented. With GM, you can tailor the data you receive.
> Because Firefox has so much leverage now, sites will be tested on it.
> So you should get consistent data to firefox. then GM can
> transparently transform this to whatever XML-Schema-DTD, Strict
> Validation scenario you desire. This will be more as an intermediate
> step.

I have no issue with any of your comments. All of that is true. Greasemonkey
is a powerful and useful tool. No one is disputing that. But I think you
miss my point. My point is that HTML is not designed to be processed in this
way on a large scale. Its internal structure simply cannot be relied on if
you're redistributing scripts to a lot of people. Yes, sites will be tested
on Firefox, but they won't be tested against every script available on

> > Oh, and please try to work some more poultry-related aphorisms into 
> > your reponse! :-)
> Thank heavens for dictionary.reference.com ;)

I'm not sure if a thesaurus is sufficient. Maybe
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/list.php would be a better bet.
To wit: Everyone's taken to Greasemonkey like a duck to water, but you might
end up with egg on your face when your chickens come home to roost. You
might think I'm bird-brained, but that's water off a duck's back. After all,
what's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is no time to be
walking on eggshells. (Also just noticed that the page's author is called
Michael *Swan* -- ROFL.)

Okay, okay, I'll stop.



More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list