[Greasemonkey] GreaseMonkeyed.com - Script Repository
godmar at gmail.com
Tue Jul 19 11:59:09 EDT 2005
I would not be surprised if this technique would see wide-spread use.
I certainly would do it this way when for instance providing a web
localization service to a local community.
Should it be directly support in the repository, allowing authors to
register only domain pattern + http://foo/bar.user.js?
Obviously, writing a blank check in this way raises more security issues.
On 7/19/05, Aaron Boodman <zboogs at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see what you're asking.
> The way to do it would be:
> Adding a <script> node to the DOM wouldn't work -- that script would
> not be able to see GM_* functions.
> On 7/19/05, Godmar Back <godmar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Good - however, will those scripts then have access to the GM_ you
> > insert in the sandbox or will they again use the content window as
> > their global object?
> > If the latter, it seems that it might be worth supporting non-local GM
> > scripts alongside locally stored GM scripts (?)
> > - Godmar
> > On 7/19/05, Aaron Boodman <zboogs at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Is this possible with the current setup - maybe doing something like
> > > > document.write("<SCRIPT src='http://.....' .... " from within the part
> > > > that is stored in the GM script directory?)
> > >
> > > Greasemonkey or Greasemonkeyed.
> > >
> > > - a
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Greasemonkey mailing list
> > > Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> > > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Greasemonkey mailing list
> > Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
More information about the Greasemonkey