3 ms·

That's a great idea. The implementation could look similar to how Firefox handles plugins today, offering the option to "Always activate", "Ask to activate", an

by pfg 10y ago

That's a great idea. The implementation could look similar to how Firefox handles plugins today, offering the option to "Always activate", "Ask to activate", and a way to say "Always allow for this domain". Other permissions could still be handled with the iOS or Android approach.

carussell 10y ago
It's also old news. This kind of URL-based whitelisting approach is exactly what Greasemonkey does. The problems with Greasemonkey come down to the same answer you'll find any time you're discussing extensions: the Firefox team is seriously underinvested in the ecosystem. Greasemonkey today is about as rough to use as it was years ago and almost has the smell of an unmaintained/abandoned project. The point is: this isn't exactly an unsolved problem so much as it is nobody taking up the effort or interest to apply a solution.
- pfg 10y ago
  My understanding is that user scripts allow you to match based on the URL. It would still be a predefined set of URLs (or URL patterns) with a binary option for the user (install and accept everything, or don't). That's essentially what extensions do today. zeta0134's approach would be to put the user in charge of building this white- or blacklist. Following the way plugins are currently implemented, this would allow you to say "I always trust this extension", "I don't trust this by default, ask me every time" and "I trust this extension for example.com". This would definitely need some security UX testing, but it seems like a reasonable approach to me.
  - carussell 10y ago
    > My understanding is that user scripts allow you to match based on the URL. Yes. > It would still be a predefined set of URLs (or URL patterns) with a binary option for the user (install and accept everything, or don't). No. > zeta0134's approach would be to put the user in charge of building this white- or blacklist. As I said before, this is what Greasemonkey gives you.

by pfg 10y ago

carussell 10y ago

It's also old news. This kind of URL-based whitelisting approach is exactly what Greasemonkey does. The problems with Greasemonkey come down to the same answer you'll find any time you're discussing extensions: the Firefox team is seriously underinvested in the ecosystem. Greasemonkey today is about as rough to use as it was years ago and almost has the smell of an unmaintained/abandoned project. The point is: this isn't exactly an unsolved problem so much as it is nobody taking up the effort or interest to apply a solution.

pfg 10y ago
My understanding is that user scripts allow you to match based on the URL. It would still be a predefined set of URLs (or URL patterns) with a binary option for the user (install and accept everything, or don't). That's essentially what extensions do today. zeta0134's approach would be to put the user in charge of building this white- or blacklist. Following the way plugins are currently implemented, this would allow you to say "I always trust this extension", "I don't trust this by default, ask me every time" and "I trust this extension for example.com". This would definitely need some security UX testing, but it seems like a reasonable approach to me.
- carussell 10y ago
  > My understanding is that user scripts allow you to match based on the URL. Yes. > It would still be a predefined set of URLs (or URL patterns) with a binary option for the user (install and accept everything, or don't). No. > zeta0134's approach would be to put the user in charge of building this white- or blacklist. As I said before, this is what Greasemonkey gives you.