-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add content scripts section in specification #542
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, Oliver! I had a chance to take a quick pass on this one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for the extra review. I didn't remember that I had looked at this already until I got to my first comment halfway through it.
Although not obvious from Github's UI, I just posted additional context on
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks all! I've just done another pass on this, would appreciate any additional feedback.
@Rob--W, I've addressed all of the actionable feedback here. Could you take another look? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I read through it all and considered approving, but then I reached the final section on the algorithm, and since that is inaccurate, I'd like to resolve that before merging.
Co-authored-by: Timothy Hatcher <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@oliverdunk and I sat together and drafted an updated algorithm that more closely resembles the behavior of Chrome and Firefox. (not Safari because it does not support match_about_blank
yet).
We still need to define how to get a precursor origin somehow; ideally that would be in a different spec.
Co-authored-by: Rob Wu <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approving to signal that I'm content with the technical accuracy of the document. What remains before merging is formatting so that the spec can render as expected.
Would also be nice to have the "precursor origin" specified somewhere (ideally somewhere not extension-specific because it is a generic concept), but that is not a blocker to merging.
I've updated the formatting following Rob's comment. While CI is passing on this PR, it seems like the preview URL still isn't getting updated. You can find the latest version here: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/actions/runs/13334183668/artifacts/2594066705 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM; thank you!
Remaining comments were non-blockers / FYI.
SHA: e393c3f Reason: push, by oliverdunk Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
SHA: e393c3f Reason: push, by oliverdunk Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
SHA: e393c3f Reason: push, by oliverdunk Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Adds a first draft of information on content scripts in the specification.
There are still some updates needed, in particular around the algorithm for deciding when to inject a script, but I wanted to open something to get some early feedback.
Preview | Diff (Both outdated!)