Forgot to reply to one point: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Erik Kay <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I thought this was in the original design. We should also > explicitly support chrome:// URLs (and again, not have it match with > *). Users should be able to use these scripts to hack on the new tab > page, etc.
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, I can see value from greasemonkey-ing the chromium UIs. On the other hand, I feel like this is exactly what we said we didn't want to do: open up internal interfaces to extension developers, which would cause us lots of pain whenever we wanted to change them. Erik and I talked about this yesterday and decided to debate it with more people in person on Monday. In any case, it's an implementation detail one way or the other so this doesn't stop me from getting to work. - a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
