Is there a way to determine when the webbrowser control starts processing the HTML of the URL it navigated to? Looking for any event raised other than onreadystatechange (which does not have clear state for this)? Ontitlechange is not accurate enough for all use cases.
I had to settle on title change. Not exactly what I wanted, but the closest.
Related
I understand that the background page of a Chrome extension is never displayed. It makes sense to me that a background page should contain only scripts. In what situations would HTML markup ever be needed?
At https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/background_pages there is an example with an HTML background page, but I haven't been able to get it to work (perhaps because I am not sure what it should be doing).
Are there any examples of simple Chrome extensions which demonstrate how HTML markup can be useful in a background page?
Historical reasons
The background page is, technically, a whole separate document - except it's not rendered in an actual tab.
For simplicity's sake, perhaps, extensions started with requiring a full HTML page for the background page through the background_page manifest property. That was the only form.
But, as evidenced by your question, most of the time it's not clear what the page can actually be used for except for holding scripts. That made the entire thing being just a piece of boilerplate.
That's why when Chrome introduced "manifest_version": 2 in 2012 as a big facelift to extensions, they added an alternative format, background.scripts array. This will offload the boilerplate to Chrome, which will then create a background page document for you, succinctly called _generated_background_page.html.
Today, this is a preferred method, though background.page is still available.
Practical reasons
With all the above said, you still sometimes want to have actual elements in your background page's document.
<script> for dynamically adding scripts to the background page (as long as they conform to extension CSP).
Among other things, since you can't include external scripts through background.scripts array, you need to create a <script> element for those you whitelist for the purpose.
<canvas> for preparing image data for use elsewhere, for example in Browser Action icons.
<audio> for producing sounds.
<textarea> for (old-school) working with clipboard (don't actually do this).
<iframe> for embedding an external page into the background page, which can sometimes help extracting dynamic data.
..possibly more.
It's debatable which boilerplate is "better": creating the elements in advance as a document, or using document.createElement and its friends as needed.
In any case, a background page is always a page, whether provided by you or autogenerated by Chrome. You can use all the DOM functions you want.
My two cents:
Take Google Mail Checker as an example, it declares a canvas in background.html
<canvas id="canvas" width="19" height="19">
Then it could manipulate the canvas in background.js and call chrome.browserAction.setIcon({imageData: canvasContext.getImageData(...)}) to change the browser action icon.
I know we could dynamically create canvas via background.js, however when doing something involving DOM element, using html directly seems easier.
In manifest.json, we specify our background page and can put an html or a js file for it. Since it is only a script that executes what sense does it make to have an html file for it?
I mean where is UI going to get shown anyway?
Similarly the devtools_page property has to be an html file. What sense does that make?
It will not be shown anywhere (that's the essence of "background"), but some elements on it make sense.
You can have an <audio> tag, and if you play it, it will be heard.
You can have an <iframe> with some other page loaded invisibly.
..and so on
As for devtools_page, it would actually be visible in the interface (as an extra panel in the DevTools)
It is possible that devtools_page must be an HTML file just for legacy reasons: it was not updated when manifest version 2 rolled out with changes to how background pages are specified. Still, the same arguments as above apply.
background_page is a legacy feature from the initial support of extensions in Chrome. background.scripts was added in Chrome 18. I can't speak for Google's original intentions but I'd guess that in the original design using an page felt more natural and would be less likely to confuse developers. Once they realized how many background_pages were just being used to load JavaScript it made sense to explicitly support that.
The Glimpse javascript panel shows a nice summary of http timing information. The time spent on the wire, the time on the server, etc....
However when you view the information using the pop out, that information is no longer accessible. I can't find http timings anywhere. Is there anyway to view this information without viewing it directly through the javascript injected panel?
Unfortunately, at this point, the answer is no.
There has been some community work to bring the full data set available from the navigation timing API into Glimpse.
That effort is a bit stale now, but if you'd like to pick it back up you'd be able to get not only http timings, but all of the following:
navigationStart
unloadEventStart
unloadEventEnd
redirectStart
redirectEnd
fetchStart
domainLookupStart
domainLookupEnd
connectStart
connectEnd
secureConnectionStart
requestStart
responseStart
responseEnd
domLoading
domInteractive
domContentLoadedEventStart
domContentLoadedEventEnd
domComplete
loadEventStart
loadEventEnd
AND it would work in almost all browsers (excluding oldIE).
Are Content Scripts (http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/content_scripts.html) injected into prerendered pages (document.webkitVisibilityState== 'prerender') ?
I’ve been reading https://developers.google.com/chrome/whitepapers/prerender and https://developers.google.com/chrome/whitepapers/pagevisibility, and am trying to figure out how Content Scripts work with page prerendering/prefetching.
Thanks
TheZ, tomdemuyt: I’m afraid you guys are missing the point. ‘run_at’ specifies whether the content script is injected before or after the DOM is constructed.
However, I am talking about document.webkitVisibilityState, which can be ‘prerender’ (when the page is in a background/invisible tab), ‘hidden’, or ‘visible’. Note that webkitVisibilityState can transition from ‘prerender’ to ‘hidden’ or ‘visible’, or back and forth between ‘hidden’ and ‘visible’, without any changes being made to the DOM. (In order to better understand this, read the articles linked in my original post.)
I think I’ve been able to determine that content scripts ARE injected into prerendered pages. Here’s the problem, however: let’s say my content script does something that should not occur on a prerendered page. For instance, it does pageview count, or adds animation, neither of which should begin until the user is actually viewing the page. So it seems that my content script should do something like what’s shown in the code examples on https://developers.google.com/chrome/whitepapers/pagevisibility - check document.webkitVisibilityState, and also listen to the ‘webkitvisibilitychange’ event, and only do pageview count/start the animation when document.webkitVisibilityState is, or has transitioned to, ‘visible’.
I may have just answered my own question, but I just wanted to make sure that I was on the right track.
Thanks
As TheZ mentioned, you should ues the run_at setting.
Link to docs : http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/content_scripts.html#registration
I have an SVG which takes a short time to load (about 2-3) seconds. During that time, it looks a little funny. Is there anyway to tell when an SVG is done rendering so I can put up a spinner or hide it or something else?
You can't tell. The restriction is to safeguard user's security. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=608030 for a more detailed explanation of when this was considered for Firefox but other UAs will come to the same conclusion so you're unlikely to be able to do this in any UA ever.
From the referenced bug...
Doing anything conditionally on the visitedness of a link seems dangerous. I haven't tried this, but suppose the attacker wants to know if the user has been to example.com. An attacker could set the href of a hyperlink to example.com, then navigate to example.com in a hidden iframe. If a MozAfterPaint event fires on the document where the hyperlink lives, you'd know the user hasn't been to www.example.com yet. Otherwise, they have.