> What I'm getting at is, can we use the chrome api javascript calls > within PAC files?
The PAC environment does not allow access to any of the chrome extension APIs. Moreover, both incognito requests and non-incognito requests flow through the same PAC script instance, so there is no way to figure out from within the PAC script if the request originated from an incognito profile or not. Your suggestion of augmenting the PAC enviroment to expose incognito information could be done, and I am interested to hear more about the use-cases. > Can someone explain the scope of javascript calls available within PAC > files that chrome parses? The PAC environment in chromium exposes the same functions as in Firefox: alert() convert_addr() dateRange() dnsDomainIs() dnsDomainLevelIs() dnsResolve() isInNet() isPlainHostName() isResolvable() localHostOrDomainIs() myIpAddress() shExpMatch() timeRange() weekdayRange() > Developers have opposed adding proxy configuration to Chrome proper. > (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=266) I expect that this UI-level restriction on not giving the option to override use of system proxy settings is going to change. In particular, the use-case that comes to mind is chrome extensions. These guys should have the ability to change the proxy settings, so there necessarily will need to be some indication in the UI whether you are using the system proxy settings, or a custom set of proxy settings. Note that you can currently override the proxy settings, using command line flags: --no-proxy-server --proxy-auto-detect --proxy-bypass-urls=<...> --proxy-pac-url=<...> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Peter<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
