[Greasemonkey] Question: what would happen if Greasemonkeysentthe ID of every applicable user script with each request?

[Matthew Gertner]

Julien,

Here, here! You make a very important point very effectively.

Someone mentioned the impressive array of high-power intellects on this
list. I have the greatest respect for the technical elegance of
Greasemonkey, of which I am a committed user, and thus for its
creators/maintainers. Likewise, I am a great admirer of
programmer/writer/thinkers like Mark Pilgrim, whose work I have followed
with great interest for a long time (long before Greasemonkey, in any case).

That said, I agree that the "back off or we fork the dog" mentality has a
pernicious stifling effect. I wish we wouldn't evoke the nuclear option so
cavalierly, for exactly the reason you give: Greasemonkey gives us a
fantastic opportunity to learn by doing, not just in the technical realm,
but also with respect to feedback loops between user and website operators.
It would be great to see all of these smart folks innovating in this area
rather than rejecting any experimentation out of hand.

The Wired article pointed to by Mark is very interesting. But I don't agree
that a couple of anecdotes of this type constitute proof that all website
operators are arrogant fools intent on coercing the general web population.
To my mind, providing information about client-side scripts to a website is
very different from reproducing the site elsewhere, effectively setting
yourself up as competition to that site (not to condone the actions of the
site in question, which I certainly *don't* agree with).

If some information about script usage is conveyed by GM (with an opt out
for sites that try to abuse this), it isn't unimaginable that some
progressive sites will improve their features in reaction to this
information. This could become a big and compelling news story, at least in
the tech world, and thus cause more mainstream sites to sit up and take
notice.

Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: greasemonkey-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:greasemonkey-
> bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf Of Julien Couvreur
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:30 PM
> To: greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> Subject: Re: [Greasemonkey] Question: what would happen if
> Greasemonkeysentthe ID of every applicable user script with each request?
> 
> On 4/30/05, Ben Hyde <bhyde at pobox.com> wrote:
> > Revealing grease monkey configuration to the site is contrary to monkey
> > nature.  These scripts stand outside the contracted part of the
> > exchange.  There are no interoperability problems for grease monkey
> > scripts, by definition.
> 
> 
> What about considering the greasemonkey "nature" as being a way to
> evolve the web?
> Consider it an experimental ground for the long tail of features.
> 
> >From one of my previous post on this thread: "I think the most
> interesting thing that publishers can do with the information is: look
> up the scripts that are being used on their sites and learn from them,
> possibly making them easier or integrating these features in their
> website. They would also learn how popular each script is."
> 
> Advertising the GM scripts being run on a page is mostly not about
> stability. If 50% of a site's users were using a given user script,
> maybe that shows a problem in the site or cool feature that is worth
> fixing/implementing.
> Maybe they would also implement it in a less hacky way than GM scripts
> do, leading to a bit more semantic markup (which in turn helps future
> GM scripts). You create a virtuous cycle for those who play along.
> Those who resist the evolution of the web wouldn't receive the
> benefits of that information, and won't really leverage the
> experimentations of the community.
> 
> Instead of using these headers to stabilize the UI, I'm thinking these
> GM headers have the potential to create a virtuous feedback loop to
> change the web faster.
> What if Apple found out that 40% of their iPod users use some
> workaround to some of the basic features/limitations? What do you
> think they'd do for iPod vNext?
> Maybe websites would find ways to create a more modular infrastructure
> for supporting features needed by only 10% of their users.
> 
> 
> Why not at least attempt it? Greasemonkey is about experimentation. If
> that experiment fails, then let's just remove the feature. The best
> way to proove this feature is useless it to implement it and "fail
> fast". We could even set a criteria for what constitutes a failure
> 
> 
> That's one thing I didn't like about the "fork threats": they put an
> unusual pressure on a relatively small feature (that doesn't
> revolutionize the architecture or principles of GM) than can easily be
> reverted if need be. This kind of reaction is like a self-appointed
> veto power, which stiffens the brainstorming and the debate. If you're
> against that feature why not just reply with (-1) vote?!
> We're only at version 0.3 of Greasemonkey! And Greasemonkey is not
> Linux (see the politics going on over there about BitKeeper and lots
> of other stuff). GM is still being defined and experimented with...
> 
> Anyways, this thread is becoming too serious :-P
> I suspect the vetoers are not going to change their minds and Aaron is
> going to give up like he said. Greasemonkey will still be great.
> Sorry for such long email. I'll try to give my soapbox a rest for a
> couple days ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Julien
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
> 
>