[Greasemonkey] decision time: compatibility or anonymity?

Brendan Crosser-McGay verifex at gmail.com
Tue Jul 19 16:01:12 EDT 2005


I would prefer it if all tell-tale signs of GM was hidden behind something, 
the wrapper being one nice idea. If more people start using GM, popular
sites affected negatively by GM will start writing GM detection into their
functionality and start redirecting, or otherwise disabling our powerful 
scripts
completely.

Rather then having to rewrite code every time they circumvent a GM script,
simply make them beyond the capacity of a on page script to see. I wouldn't
mind being burdened with having to declare the DOM security access I want
in the header of each script. (Assuming that is one solution that has been
mentioned) Even burdening us script writers with more explicitness needed
in accessing DOM elements wouldn't deter me.

-Brendan

On 7/19/05, Lenny Domnitser <ldrhcp at gmail.com > wrote:
> 
> On 7/19/05, Bill Donnelly <donnelly at snowcrest.net > wrote:
> > Just wrap the whole thing in a "with window" statement!
> 
> This was my first thought. So far, there were responses about the
> scope problem but none mentioning with(window). Is there any reason 
> this shouldn't work?
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mozdev.org/pipermail/greasemonkey/attachments/20050719/98e3adbb/attachment.htm


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list