On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Benjamin Francis <bfran...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 17 June 2015 at 13:29, Paul Rouget <p...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >> Extending the API every time we want to do something that goes beyond the >> API >> capabilities is painful and slow. > > > Yes I'm acutely aware of this, having done it for the last three and half > years :) > >> >> The executeScript approach makes our >> life a lot >> easier and gives us a lot more flexibility. > > > I agree. But I also think it makes browser.html more like chrome privileged > code than web content. I'm not saying that's the wrong approach, it's just a > different approach to the Browser API. The goal of the Browser API was to > enable you to build a browser as web content. > > I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really think an executeScript() API > has much to do with the Browser API, it's a parallel solution to the same > sorts of problems. I suppose it comes down to the same debate as "if none of > our privileged APIs get standardised, is privileged/certified content just a > new type of chrome?". > > I'd still be interested to learn more about your use cases.
- access the computed style of the body to update the theme of the browser - walk through the DOM to get data to build a preview of the tab - access any metadata (today the list is limited) - find the largest image of the page for a "tab card" - … But mostly, being able to do more with the browser api without requiring an update of gecko. -- Paul _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
