[Greasemonkey] decision time: compatibility or anonymity?

Aaron Boodman zboogs at gmail.com
Tue Jul 19 14:27:01 EDT 2005


We can add all properties -- we just wouldn't get any (expandos) that
were added after we ran. Perhaps that is not a big deal. You'd need to
use the untrusted window object to get to expandos.

It's also worth nothing that you wouldn't be able to get to javascript
variables and functions defined by content globally, and we couldn't
(and wouldn't want to) add these to your global scope. You'd have to
do:

contentWindow.foobarfunction();

- a

On 7/19/05, Jeremy Dunck <jdunck at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/05, Aaron Boodman <zboogs at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This can be mitigated somewhat by adding the most common objects
> > (document, location, alert, prompt, etc) to the global scope. But it
> > won't be the same as what we have now, and it may be slightly
> > confusing -- why can you access document globally, but not other
> > arbitrary methods on window.
> 
> I don't understand why a few things can be added to the global scope,
> but not all window props.
> 
> Pseudo code example?
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list