3 ms·
Actually, he seems to be referring mainly to userscripts, which are a sort of step down from extensions. Extensions typically add to the browser GUI and make on
by Raphael 18y ago
Actually, he seems to be referring mainly to userscripts, which are a sort of step down from extensions. Extensions typically add to the browser GUI and make only minor adjustments to the DOM, whereas userscripts operate entirely on the DOM and are limited in interaction with the containing browser.
At least, this is my impression. The line gets fuzzier all the time, so feel free to disagree.
The userscript approach would lend itself better to cross-browser compatibility, in addition to being a relevant platform in the era of HTML-JavaScript apps.
- lucumo 18y agoOn top of that, most browsers already have support for GreaseMonkey scripts. Opera has it built in. IE has http://www.gm4ie.com/ http://www.gm4ie.com/ . WebKit has http://8-p.info/greasekit/ http://8-p.info/greasekit/ . Chrome http://greasemetal.31tools.com/ http://greasemetal.31tools.com/ and will likely have it built-in. And, of course, FireFox has GreaseMonkey itself. But the author wants some kind of proxy that works for all browsers, even if they don't have GM support or even anything like plugin support.