Monkey Business
CNet discusses another potential problem with Greasemonkey: malicious scripts. Add that to the potential backlash from site operators that I mentioned last week, and it’s clear that we want to be on the lookout for safer alternatives to Greasemonkey scripts. That said, existing scripts have a hidden benefit, besides their immediate utility, in that they tell us in great detail what the requirements would be for a potential replacement.
Bookmark to:
1 Comment »
Trackback URL RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Yep. Tim Bray has made the point (repeatedly) that technologies succeed when they hit the 80/20 point.
And that standardization should occur on the basis of experience, and not innovation.
People didn’t cook up the cookie spec before the web went live. There was a lot of existing art that informed the requirements and security concerns.
I’m happy to make this useful mess. I think the web will be pushed forward (in a small way) on the basis of what we’re learning.
Comment by Jeremy Dunck — 3/23/2005 @ 6:12 pm