greasemonkey-dev Google Group

Happy New Year

2010-01-06T21:01:06Z

Happy New Year! A little gift:
[link]

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Help with greasemonkey link code

2010-01-04T16:00:55Z

I'm not really sure whether firing the click event on an anchor
element actually triggers navigation to the url in the href attribute.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall having read that this is not possible.
In this particular case, however, the following should be enough:
document.location.replace(docu ment.links[2].href); // you may want

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Help with greasemonkey link code

2010-01-04T11:51:21Z

Hi, thanks for the help, I actually tried that, it still didn't click the link...
any ideas...
I am writing a script code for a job search site to help me with my job search, so your help is VERY much appreciated, this is the last part I cant get
Marco
To: greasemonkey-dev@googlegroups. com
Received: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 7:23 PM

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Help with greasemonkey link code

2010-01-04T03:23:53Z

Hi.
DOM Level 1 API will not work unless in "unsafeWindow".
So we need to use DOM Level 2.
var obj = document.links[2];
var e = document.createEvent('MouseEve nts');
e.initEvent('click', true, false);
obj.dispatchEvent(e);
----
teramako
[link]
2010/1/4 mriato <marcori...@yahoo.com>:

Help with greasemonkey link code

2010-01-04T01:55:35Z

Hi, I am a REAL newbie with greasemonkey and javascript, and I have a
question.
A page I visit has a link, and to get to it I must click what looks
like a "button" with the words Details on it. It is not set up as a
form submit type button though (where I can use form.elements.click
())... I've used Firebug and got right to the Details "button" and the

Re: Proxy Greasemonkey

2010-01-02T20:27:32Z

If all you want to do is to run greasemonkey on a computer where you
cannot install it, one solution is to get a USB memory stick and
install Portable Firefox and greasemonkey on the stick.
I've done this in the past with no problem though it is conceivable
that some computer systems could block you from running applications

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Proxy Greasemonkey

2010-01-02T18:36:25Z

Like mousehole?

Proxy Greasemonkey

2010-01-02T18:10:59Z

Hi there,
sometimes I am a guest in other PCs and I cannot install any add-ons.
So my question is:
would it be possible to develop a "proxy greasemonkey"?
I will put it on my home server. I will go to [link]
and the home proxy will:
1) execute the greasemonkey javascripts

Re: Early Greasemonkey 0.9.0 Preview Build

2010-01-01T15:10:46Z

In case you want to uninstall script while script's directory is being
used (locked) by some other app GM does remove content of script's dir
but not the directory itself which is logic. Thou script's reference
is still present in User Scripts listing (Manage User Scripts...) and
can't be removed. After clicking again on Uninstall we get "Crap,

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Access violation check conflicts with Ubiquity

2009-12-30T17:19:49Z

Glad to know things are at least mostly solved.
At this point, I would hope that the 1.0 plans firm up. I'm still not
completely clear if the plans I curently envision will actually work
(_and_ be secure enough) but if they do, all this 'access check
violation' stuff would be finished.
(Not that this will happen anytime "soon". But it should happen.)

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Access violation check conflicts with Ubiquity

2009-12-29T21:36:31Z

2009/12/29 Johan Sundström <oyas...@gmail.com>:
Tested but it doesn't seem to work. There are to possible places for
the function passed to setTimeout: the script or the page. In the
first case, it doesn't work because the GM context doesn't exists any
longer when the timeout is reached. In the second case it doesn't work

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Access violation check conflicts with Ubiquity

2009-12-29T17:41:08Z

How about putting the second block above in a function called from a
delayed setTimeout? That sounds like it should give the desired
effect.

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Access violation check conflicts with Ubiquity

2009-12-29T15:13:18Z

I've found a workaround for window.setTimeout( func, 0) when
javascript is blocked by Noscript. The idea is that although
javascript is not allowed, DOM events are still being fired. If you
attached a handler defined in GM scope, it will be called:
Instead of:
window.setTimeout( func , 0)
where func is a function that makes use of the GM API, use:

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Access violation check conflicts with Ubiquity

2009-12-28T23:09:13Z

Thanks for your answer. Unfortunately the usual work around via
setTimeout is not an option for me, since I have javascript disabled
in every page by default (NoScript).
Nevertheles, maybe we could still allow file: urls from the extension
folder. After all, they could equally be chrome: urls, had the

Re: [greasemonkey-dev] Access violation check conflicts with Ubiquity

2009-12-28T20:54:00Z

Yes. Only "known good" source files are allowed.
The standard workaround [1] should probably work. This page could
certainly be a lot more discoverable.
True. The message was designed for the most common case, the case the
access check was designed for.
[1] [link]