David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hi there,
> ist there any way to get Greasemonkey to work under Conkeror? Or
> alternatively, can I convert greasemonkey scripts to somehow work under
> Conkeror? I just can't live without LookItUp anymore...

I have looked into Greasemonkey, and it should be possible to either
write some fairly minimal glue code to add support for Conkeror to
Greasemonkey or alternatively write a fairly simple converter program to
convert a Greasemonkey script into a Conkeror module.  However, there is
a serious limitation: the way that Greasemonkey scripts can create key
bindings is effectively equivalent to the way that websites themselves
can create key bindings, and these bindings will only be accessible in
the pass-through mode.  A possible workaround would be to bind the
relevant keys as pass through keys in Conkeror, but this is obviously
somewhat of a nuisance.

Furthermore, there is the more general issue that for any given
functionality implemented by a greasemonkey script, there is almost
certainly a much cleaner and nicer way to implement it directly as a
Conkeror module.  This reduces the incentive to get Greasemonkey itself
working well.

> By the way, I also made a little shell script to make any xpi-file at
> least installable in conkeror (doesn't mean it'll work, of course). I
> post it here since maybe it is useful to others. Just call with
> `extconvert <xpi-file>' and it will create a new xpi file with
> "_conkeror" appended to its name.

Thanks, this is helpful.  Before a recent bug in the xulrunner extension
manager was introduced, it was possible to install any xpi simply by
setting the preference extensions.checkCompatibility to false.  I'll see
about including this script in Conkeror in e.g. contrib.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
_______________________________________________
Conkeror mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror

Reply via email to