On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Peter O'Brien<peter.j.obr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
It can be file-system local, by using file:// urls.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
