Closed dufferzafar closed 4 years ago
To implement bt words
and bt text
commands.
It would actually be nice to have granular permissions, e.g. if you don't use bt words
or bt text
commands, you don't have to give the extension too much access, similarly to how it's done in apple/android ecosystem. Here with extensions it's all or nothing, AFAIK.
What about building another version as well? One named "brotab-noout" or something, that can be the same but without support for bt [word|text]
.
At least for me, I'm super skeptical using anything that needs access data for all websites
My current life situation is such that I don't really devote much of my leisure time to open source contributions. But when I do, even with the current state of things it's quite a hassle to release both chromium and firefox versions, I always have to reread my release procedure notes and be super focused to not mess things up. Having another branch without word/text
will only make it worse, so I have zero intention doing that :man_shrugging:
I understand your concern though, and as ugly as it may sound, if this extension makes a difference in your life, I think you may be better off stripping html and text parts of the extension manually and installing it locally in dev mode. I don't think you'll miss out on anything or will have to do it often since as you can see this extension doesn't really change much.
Thanks for the honest reply @balta2ar , I thought maybe you had everything automated using GitHub actions or something :p I go you can consider a pr if someone do automate and fix this. I've never created an extension myself, but I might do the pr some time
Hi @balta2ar
It seems it is now possible to configure optional permissions for an extension.
Would you be opened to a PR implementing optional permission for "access data for all websites"?
I understand the permission to access tabs & run native client but, why does it require the permission to "access data for all websites"?