[Greasemonkey] Feature: User scripts with HTML configuration?

[Jon C]

>From: Nikolas Coukouma <lists at atrus.org>
>Reply-To: greasemonkey at mozdev.org
>To: greasemonkey at mozdev.org
>Subject: Re: [Greasemonkey] Feature:  User scripts with HTML configuration?
>Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:23:35 -0400
>
>john cummings wrote:
>
> > I'd like to request a small(?) feature:  Would it be possible to
> > provide an HTML back-end to our user scripts such that end users can
> > configure the behavior of the scripts.  Already, I've written a script
> > which allows the end user to change certain variables (manually with a
> > text editor) to alter/disable certain functions and of course there's
> > that customize google site which 'compiles' a greasemonkey script
> > based on individual needs. I find this a bit sloppy for having end
> > users make adjustments like that when they might not be familiar at
> > all with javascript.  It would then seem that having a small dialog
> > box / option box to allow end users to tweak their scripts (via HTML
> > interface provided in some way along with a user script) is a logical
> > step in making greasemonkey and its scripts more flexible for users.
> > This would add a new dimension and add possibilities to what can be
> > done with user scripts, including stuff beyond just configuring script
> > behavior.  Of course it would probably require a package of some sort
> > (for example:  *.user.jar).  Seems like it would fit the bill, between
> > ordinary gm scripts and full extensions, like a "light" extension
> > almost but without the XUL :o)  I'd like to know what folks think
> > about this.
>
>Right now, all persistant storage is provided by the preference system.
>I've already proposed an interface for it [1]. It lets you store
>strings, integers, and booleans. Until we have a more complex system for
>storing information, it's silly to have a more complex interface to it ;)
>
>As for packaging, I think it will be added eventually [2]. I'd like to
>finish the other items on my todo list first (namely the UI redesign and
>supporting theming,localization) before working on it. The exact form
>hasn't been discussed yet, but I expect it will be a zip file (just like
>XPI and Jar).
>
>[1] http://mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=10367
>[2] http://www.livejournal.com/users/atrustheotaku/261987.html
>
>-Nikolas Coukouma
>_______________________________________________
>Greasemonkey mailing list
>Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
>http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

An about:config type interface -- as alluded to on one of the links -- would 
work quite nicely and probably covers most of what that HTML interface, that 
I had in mind, would've done.  I know that some of the scripts out there 
allow for configuration with hidden divs/frames along with the built-in GM 
functions, but that seems a bit akward considering that the user is 
configuring a gm script via the webpage itself -- the context is all wrong, 
not to mention the hassle of managing a significant amount html through js 
strings.

Another thing I forgot to mention in addition to allowing script 
configuration, was css -- or js strings containing css.  This is also kind 
of a hassle to deal with, along with html.  Hopefully the preference system 
might be able to accommodate this by allowing large multiline strings (I was 
thinking HTML textareas in my first post).

It also makes sense in terms of letting people do things within their level 
of expertise:  Greasemonkey let's people write scripts without having to 
make extensions, and now perhaps, scriptwriters can let people fiddle with 
css's without writing/modifying user scripts, or something like that :)

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/