On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Aaron Boodman <a...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Alec Burgess <burn...@rogers.com> wrote: >> Thanks Aaron - that was it - worked fine (after close and then reopen of >> Chrome). > > Great, I'm glad to hear that. > >> Question: >> Are the Greasemonkey include and exclude directives (eg: "// @include >> http://images.google.*/*";) just comments when processed by Chrome ie. the >> resulting Chrome script could get applied if another web-page happened to >> meet its criteria? > > Chrome understand the @include, @exclude syntax. It won't apply the > user script to pages that don't match those rules. > >> Also, is there an easy way to "eyeball" my other installed firefox >> GM-scripts and determine whether they are likely to work in Chrome "as is"? > > If the script includes the strings "GM_xmlhttpRequest", > "unsafeWindow", or "wrappedJSObject", it *may* not work as-is. > However, this isn't a perfect test. Some scripts that don't include > any of these words still won't work as-is, and some scripts that > include them *will* work as-is. > > It's sort of the same problem as writing cross-browser web pages. Each > browser has its own quirks. The developer needs to test their scripts > in all the browsers they intend to support to know for sure if they > really work. > > - a >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-extensi...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extensions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions?hl=.
