On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ilya Sukhar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> It looks like view-source pages no longer get content scripts. Adam, is that >>> intentional and the behavior to expect going forward? >> >> I wasn't aware of any change, but Aaron might know more. It seems >> like we should allow content scripts in view-source if you ask for >> view-source in the manifest. >> >> In general, the view-source implementation is really wonky because >> sometimes we present it with "view-source:" in the URL and sometimes >> we represent it with a flag on the Frame object. > > This wasn't changed purposefully. OTOH, should http://*/* match > view-source:// ? That seems a bit unexpected. Maybe match patterns > should explicitly support the view-source:// pseudo protocol.
Yeah, I think that's the best approach. The downside is that it makes it harder to change the view-source features without breaking some extensions. The upside is that extensions can make view-source more awesome. :) Adam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions?hl=en.
