> > The PAC environment does not allow access to any of the chrome extension > APIs. >
Thanks for the clarification. 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. Initial use case is simply detecting an incognito instance and routing requests through a socks proxy, for instance to avoid ISP filtering, protect data/privacy, etc. I'm sure there are other ways this can be done, perhaps through an API as Peter suggested above. For other use cases, it might be interesting to open the PAC script up to an API so that extensions can access it in memory. It would make writing an ad-blocking extension trivial, for example. Not sure if that would be appropriate or work well. > I expect that this UI-level restriction on not giving the option to > override use of system proxy settings is going to change. > Good to hear. For the PAC command-line, can you specify filesystem locations or does it have to be served via http? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
