Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #36041 > unrolled thread

Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-21 12:39 +0100
    Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-22 00:05 +0100
      Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 08:59 +0100
        Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. Flng Fck <nothanks@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-22 09:05 +0100
          Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 10:50 +0100
    Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. Joao Rodrigues <jr.c.l.js@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 21:51 -0300
      Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 09:29 +0100
    Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-02-22 18:49 +0700
      Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 13:51 +0100
        Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. Update. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 14:34 +0100
          Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value.Solved. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-22 15:12 +0100
        Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-02-23 10:18 +0700
          Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-23 09:53 +0100
            Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-02-23 18:14 +0700
              Re: Greasemonkey getComputedStyle doesn't doesn't return the expected-and-confirmed value. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 18:53 +0100
                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 10:23 +0100
                  Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-26 11:27 +0100
                    Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 12:54 +0100
                      Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-26 19:26 +0100
                        Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-27 10:45 +0100
                          Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-27 12:09 +0100
                            Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-27 12:34 +0100
                              Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-28 11:07 +0100
                                Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-28 12:46 +0100
                                  Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-02-28 22:41 +0100
                                    Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-03-01 09:59 +0100
                                      Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-03-01 10:55 +0100
                                        Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-03-01 11:40 +0100
                                          Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-03-01 16:08 +0100
                  Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-02-27 00:12 +0700
                    Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-27 10:39 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#36065 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote on 27 Feb 2019 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Evertjan,
> 
>> Well, you can only do this AFTER the creation,
>> so you should always be too late with any monkey
> 
> Than why than can I "kill" images, scripts and CSS that way (no associated 
> resources are requested) ?
> 
>> Meaning only that the word "kill" seems ill-chosen.
> 
> I do not see you giving a better one, so I'm going to ignore that.

That is not the point, the point [sorry MY point] is, that killing does not 
accomplish the not being born, so the process of the frame must already be 
in place starting with the fetching of the source.

Likewise, I strongly suppose, that you cannot prevent the fetching of the 
overall source of a page by [x]-monkey, only the implementation of the DOM,
and fetching a page source is not part of the DOM.

>> So there is no question of simple abortion, isn't it?
> 
> I have no idea.  That was why I posted my question. 
>
>  Maybe one of the 
> other plugins I mentioned does it differently and has no problem with it.

I would be surprised, my [partly informed] deduction suggests otherwise.
 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36066 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

Evertjan,

> so the process of the frame must already be
> in place starting with the fetching of the source.

You have a problem with "kill" ?  I have a problem with "the fetching".   It 
seems to indicate some vague state where it isn't even present on my 'puter 
yet ("in the womb" maybe ?).

And as you have given no response, let alone a reason to why an iframe seems 
to be doing something different than the other elements I named I don't 
think you are the one to answer my question.

Regards
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36072 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote on 27 Feb 2019 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> Evertjan,
> 
>> so the process of the frame must already be
>> in place starting with the fetching of the source.
> 
> You have a problem with "kill" ?  I have a problem with "the fetching". 
>  It seems to indicate some vague state where it isn't even present on my
> 'puter yet ("in the womb" maybe ?).
> 
> And as you have given no response, let alone a reason to why an iframe
> seems to be doing something different than the other elements I named I
> don't think you are the one to answer my question.

I fail to see wat joy you get to convert responses to ad hominem 
insinuations about that responder. However some people perhaps have joy in 
unneccesarily doing despicable things [not meaning you specifically].

=======

Forget monkeys for a moment and imagine this:

[1] 
======
<script>...</script>
<iframe href='...'></iframe>
======

Would there be any script that can prevent the iframe from being created?

Methinks not, 
as the script cannot even see the iframe until it is part of the DOM.

[2]
======
<iframe href='...'></iframe>
<script>...</script>
======

Would there be any script that can prevent the iframe from calling the href 
source?

Mesupposes not, 
as [a] the script has no access to the iframe content.
or [b] the script would be too late for that.

[3] 
I cannot imagine early-onset monkey-business being faster than inline 
javascript, as, as you can see in most browser debuggers, they are just 
inserted as such.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36073 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

Evertjan,

> I fail to see wat joy you get to convert responses to ad
> hominem insinuations about that responder.

I don't. Far from it actually.

But I have even less "joy" from reading a response from someone who 
complains about the usage of a word without even /trying/ to offer a better 
way.   Over time I've become very weary (and tired) of such people.

Combine that with the fact that I tried to explain whats going on /right 
next to it/, and even have provided more info when asked for to whichyou 
than replied to with some "brilliant" statement that "Well, you can only do 
this AFTER the creation," which is vague as to be unusable ("creation" ? 
when is that ?   When added to the DOM in a non-active state, or after it 
has been activated ? Or another moment perhaps ?   And again, how would that 
be different from any other element, which I *can* "kill" ?) COMING FROM A 
PERSON WHO COMPLAINS ABOUT INCORRECT WORDING and you see my disappointment 
with such a person.

No, its nothing personal.   I just can't stand hypocrites who demand a 
certain "correct" behaviour from others, but fail in any way to give the 
same back.

Is that clear enough for you ?

> Forget monkeys for a moment and imagine this:

Yeah, lets forget that GreaseMonkey can execute scripts to modify the DOM 
/before/ its actually activated, and than complain about how you can't hoist 
yourself by your own petard.   Dishonest much ?   Or just having zero clue 
to what GreaseMonkey is or does ?

> Would there be any script that can prevent the iframe from
> being created?

Go away.  Please.   And only come back when you have googeled to what 
GreaseMonkey is for.

And in that case be sure to respond to the others(my) "but why than ..." 
points of consideration / requests for clarification instead of bluntly 
ignoring it.   And for the record: I take such a refusal/ingoring as either 
"I have no clue to what he said" or an "I do not want to admit I am wrong". 
Which one of the two reasons is yours ?

Also, I asked if either Tamper or ViolentMonkey did it different than 
GreaseMonkey.   You discarded that question without as much as a word, let 
alone an explanation, and replaced it with your own one.  Arrogant much ?

And as that solution to your own question has no value to me you've just 
wasted your time.  Congrats with that.

Yes, I'm tired.  I'm /very/ tired from having to fight people to answer /my/ 
questions instead of whatever they feel they want to do instead.  And I 
guess it starts to show.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36076 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote on 28 Feb 2019 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> Evertjan,
> 
>> I fail to see wat joy you get to convert responses to ad
>> hominem insinuations about that responder.
> 
> I don't. Far from it actually.
> 
> But I have even less "joy" from reading a response from someone who 
> complains about the usage of a word without even /trying/ to offer a
> better way.   Over time I've become very weary (and tired) of such
> people. 
> 
> Combine that with the fact that I tried to explain whats going on /right
> next to it/, and even have provided more info when asked for to whichyou
> than replied to with some "brilliant" statement that "Well, you can only
> do this AFTER the creation," which is vague as to be unusable
> ("creation" ? when is that ?   When added to the DOM in a non-active
> state, or after it has been activated ? Or another moment perhaps ?  
> And again, how would that be different from any other element, which I
> *can* "kill" ?) COMING FROM A PERSON WHO COMPLAINS ABOUT INCORRECT
> WORDING and you see my disappointment with such a person.
> 
> No, its nothing personal.   I just can't stand hypocrites who demand a 
> certain "correct" behaviour from others, but fail in any way to give the
> same back.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you ?
> 
>> Forget monkeys for a moment and imagine this:
> 
> Yeah, lets forget that GreaseMonkey can execute scripts to modify the
> DOM /before/ its actually activated, and than complain about how you
> can't hoist yourself by your own petard.   Dishonest much ?   Or just
> having zero clue to what GreaseMonkey is or does ?
> 
>> Would there be any script that can prevent the iframe from
>> being created?
> 
> Go away.  Please.   And only come back when you have googeled to what 
> GreaseMonkey is for.
> 
> And in that case be sure to respond to the others(my) "but why than ..."
> points of consideration / requests for clarification instead of bluntly 
> ignoring it.   And for the record: I take such a refusal/ingoring as
> either "I have no clue to what he said" or an "I do not want to admit I
> am wrong". Which one of the two reasons is yours ?
> 
> Also, I asked if either Tamper or ViolentMonkey did it different than 
> GreaseMonkey.   You discarded that question without as much as a word,
> let alone an explanation, and replaced it with your own one.  Arrogant
> much ? 
> 
> And as that solution to your own question has no value to me you've just
> wasted your time.  Congrats with that.
> 
> Yes, I'm tired.  I'm /very/ tired from having to fight people to answer
> /my/ questions instead of whatever they feel they want to do instead. 
> And I guess it starts to show.

See you are doing it again, not engaging in my explanation,that none of the 
monkeys can do this for their existential reasons, namely that "killing" of 
a process cannot prevent it being "created".

And faliciously calling ad hominem attacks to hide your lack of 
argumentation.

And suggesting that I should go away from a discussion, because of your 
mood, which is delusional behavour on usenet.

Bah, you do not own a usenet thread you started.


-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36077 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

Evertjan,

> See you are doing it again, not engaging in my explanation,

Thats rich, coming from someone who ignores explanations / points of 
consideration of mine.

> that none of the monkeys can do this for their existential
> reasons, namely that "killing" of a process cannot prevent
> it being "created".

... as well as refusing to respond my mentioning of your failure to define 
what "created" (or alike) means to you.   Newsflash: It /most likely/ means 
something different to you, with your js background, as it does to me, with 
GreaseMonkey as the subject.

> And faliciously calling ad hominem attacks to hide your lack
> of argumentation.

Non-underbuild claims are like dust in the wind.  Most often used to try to 
obscure something else.  I wonder, what are you trying to hide ?   Your own 
failure perhaps ?   And no, I'm not going to underbuild that one here.  When 
in Rome and all that. :-p

As for that "lack of argumentation" ?   I've yet to see you respond, let 
alone counter my "why doesn't it work for iframes when it works for other 
elements ?" point of consideration.

Or respond to my "hoist on your own petard" remark

Or my "GreaseMonkey works on it /before/ its activated" one.

Funny that, people who accuse others of doing the things they are guilty of 
themselves ...

> And suggesting that I should go away from a discussion, because
> of your mood, which is delusional behavour on usenet.

Your own delusion is that you can butt into a question about GreaseMonkey 
while not knowing /anything/ about it, thinking that you can "wing it" on 
your knowledge of js alone.

'Cause that is what your "you can't kill it" comes from, doesn't ?   In your 
"it must be on a webpage" usage of js you cannot start embedded scripts 
without also having activated all other elements on the page.

Also, you're /again/ refusing to respond to my explanation to how that 
doesn't apply.

And no, only someone with an agenda would read that as a "go a way, period". 
Not when, on the same line, I followed it up with the "suggestion" you first 
brush-up on your /basic knowledge/ of the subject at hand.

And no, that subject isn't js.

> Bah, you do not own a usenet thread you started.

Correct.   But I still do "own" the right to point out to you that you 
sorely lack knowledge on the subject at hand and "suggest" you change 
something about that - before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Bottom line: You seem to have made a "its just js, how hard could it be ?" 
assumption mistake, while, for some reason or another, ignoring everything 
that you didn't match your knowledge about it.  You than fell into the pit 
you dug yourself, and thought it would be a good idea to just keep digging - 
by claiming its all the other persons fault.

The "joke" about that carpenter with only a hammer as his tool comes to mind 
...

Man up kiddo.   Making mistakes isn't what defines a person.  How he deals 
with it does.   You ? You seem to be dealing with it badly.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36078 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote on 01 Mar 2019 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>> See you are doing it again, not engaging in my explanation,
> 
> Thats rich, coming from someone who ignores explanations / points of 
> consideration of mine.

See, again ["someone"] you are using ad hominem conversion.

Arguments should be measured by their content, 
not by from who they "come from".

> ... as well as refusing to respond my mentioning of your failure to define 
> what "created" (or alike) means to you. 

again ["refusing to respond"] you are using ad hominem conversion,
this has nothing to do with my friendly explaining to you why the monkeys 
can never prevent the loading of the source that induced them to be called.

I do not ***need*** to respond to anything, as usenet is not a helpdesk, but 
a discussion platform.

> [..]
>  I wonder, what are you trying to hide ?   Your own 
> failure perhaps ? 

Seems you love the ad hominem so much. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36079 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

Evertjan,

>>> See you are doing it again, not engaging in my explanation,
>>
>> Thats rich, coming from someone who ignores explanations / points of
>> consideration of mine.
>
> See, again ["someone"] you are using ad hominem conversion.

Do yourself a suggestion, and read the first line there, in which I quote 
you.   A bit of a pot vs kettle, don't you think ?

Yeah, thats all of the kind of "defence" you put up: Hypocritical "I'm doing 
it, but you aren't allowed to" whining.

Kiddo, I think it doesn't make any difference of what I say or how well I 
underbuild it.  According to you its all my fault anyway.

Goodbye.  Have a long life (old chineese curse by the way :-) )

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36080 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote on 01 Mar 2019 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> Evertjan,
> 
>>>> See you are doing it again, not engaging in my explanation,
>>>
>>> Thats rich, coming from someone who ignores explanations / points of
>>> consideration of mine.
>>
>> See, again ["someone"] you are using ad hominem conversion.
> 
> Do yourself a suggestion, and read the first line there, in which I
> quote you.   A bit of a pot vs kettle, don't you think ?

I don't.

I never suggeste anything of the sort thay you are na idiot, or thay you are 
not able to understand anything or better not respond to a question.

I value people and also you.

But that does not mean I have to respect your present action or that I heve 
to respect ideas.

and I deplore your present ad hominem remarks.

> Yeah, thats all of the kind of "defence" you put up: Hypocritical "I'm
> doing it, but you aren't allowed to" whining.

Sorry, I cannot follow you here, I don't use ad hominem.

> Kiddo, 

see, that is ad hominem.

> I think it doesn't make any difference of what I say or how well
> I underbuild it.  According to you its all my fault anyway.

No, I deplore your ad hominem reactions.

> Goodbye.  Have a long life (old chineese curse by the way :-) )

???
 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Thank you for your automated regards. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36061 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:23:31 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
> 
> GreaseMonkey seem to be starting to late to allow it to kill iframes : They 
> can be removed from the DOM ofcourse, but the request for its contents has 
> than already been send out. :-(

If the IFRAMEs are static elements (i.e. are not added dynamically via
JavaScript), it's not possible to prevent the resources from being requested
to the server. Because once an element which refer to an external resource
is added into the document, the browser will immediately put the resource
URL into the network request queue, and there's no way to undo the queue
except from a browser addon context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36063 — Re: Greasemonkey vs the other ones - iframes

JJ,

> If the IFRAMEs are static elements

Jup, those are the ones I mean.

> Because once an element which refer to an external
> resource is added into the document, the browser
> will immediately put the resource URL into the network
> request queue,

Not quite true.   I can remove image, CSS and script elements just fine (no 
resource is requested) .  Its just those iframes which escape.   Or is there 
some state where "document" != DOM ?

Currently I'm assuming that iframes are handled specially, very early on in 
the populating of the DOM.

> and there's no way to undo the queue except from a browser
> addon context.

RequestPolicy to the rescue!    Which is how I noticed those iframes escaped 
(in a way) scrubbing in the first place.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web