[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkey 0.6.6

[Johan Sundström]

> Would it be better if it was the way a previous message in this
> thread suggested:
>
> Greasemonkey >
>  Install script
>  Manage scripts
>  New Script
>  ----
>  USC #1
>  USC #2
>  ... etc ...

That would pretty much take us back to the level of convenience we
used to have, so I would be glad about it, anyway. Especially so if we
don't find some great monkey menu solution, which might be unlikely.

✓ USC #1 without menu commands
✗ USC #2
     USC #3 with menu commands >
         ✓ Enabled
             Reconfigure
✗ USC #4

might not be ideal either, but it's another take that would be quite
akin to the monkey icon vs monkey menu's Enabled entry. (Disabled
scripts of course would never need have any children, and script nodes
with menu command children need never have any checkmark.)

> I think we can get by doing both. Developers can put numerical
> versions in there if they're anal, or text strings if they don't want
> to. We're going to always display it as version: <blah>, so people
> will know it's a version.
>
> I think due to the terrifying privacy powers user scripts have, we
> will never silently autoupdate users, but always prompt them. So I
> don't see any technical advantage to enforcing a numbering scheme.

Somewhat of the lesser side compared to extensions, but if we ever
head in the direction of semi-automated script update aids, which I
hope will eventually happen, we should again mimic the procedures
already in place for extensions, much as the script install procedure
of today is a rather close replica of the extension install procedure.

Tempting as it is (with lots of paperwork to get through), I'm going
to postpone a deeper dive into the technicalities of implementing
these

-- 
 / Johan Sundström, http://ecmanaut.blogspot.com/