I guess such a function could be used to 'detect' incognito mode in a forced - PAC environment, ie where the PAC is served by your employer at work.
My intention was to devise a way to set an alternate proxy server to use within incognito mode. Developers have opposed adding proxy configuration to Chrome proper. (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=266) I'm trying to find ways to make advanced proxy configurations. In this case, a user could add a test case to the PAC file to check if the browser is incognito, and if it is, use a proxy. See related here (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail? id=509) and my comment (10). On Jul 14, 3:23 pm, Jim Roskind <[email protected]> wrote: > I tend to think incognito mode as a personal (and very private) decision. > As a result, I'd tend to prefer that it be very difficult to leak such > status further than absolutely necessary. Allowing your proxy provider to > detect this status seems like a violation of the "need to know," but perhaps > that because I see a proxy provider as an ISP in the common case. If I > thought I could "trust" my proxy provider, perhaps I'd be more open about > this status. > ...but perhaps that was not the best example of your need for the API > access?? > > Jim > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Can someone explain the scope of javascript calls available within PAC > > files that chrome parses? > > > What I'm getting at is, can we use the chrome api javascript calls > > within PAC files? > > > Why would you want/need this? First thought is to determine if the > > browser is in incognito mode or not, but there may be other > > applications. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
