On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Evan Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > I know that "user scripts" has a known meaning, but in the context of > this code it is a rather strange name. > > // these two are loaded into the extension process > chrome_scripts: ["chrome/main.js"], > toolstrip: "chrome/toolstrip.html", > // this is loaded into renderers > user_scripts: { > > Have you considered something like "content_scripts" instead? The > reason there were called "user" scripts before was because the user > controlled them, but here they're deep inside the extension.
Heh, we actually originally called them "content scripts" (in the original design docs). I changed the name to user scripts because I thought it would be more immediately understandable to extension developers who are familiar with the existing concept. Also, for some time, I thought the metadata controlling when userscripts-in-extensions would be compatible with userscripts-in-greasemonkey, so to me, it made sense to call them the same thing. That's no longer true though, so maybe it makes sense to go back to content_scripts. <shrug> Either way, I think we'll end up explaining this like "Chromium extensions support <whatever> scripts (sorta like Greasemonkey)." - a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
