{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreieghfqomay6ro2xxrvlo62ksqaibsgfeoekl4ekg22x746rt4jz5y",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjpyc5bc5gb2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33298&p=272477#p272477",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-17T22:33:21.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> Quick question: Is there someone here that would hate my extension not being 100% faithful to how Greasemonkey should look and act like (Think of the current upstream version of Greasemonkey on Firefox), or do you guys just care about the extension being compatible and effective, no matter how different it'll look like in comparison to the old fork of Greasemonkey?\n\nI doubt anyone here would prefer looks over compatibility and effectiveness! But hey, that's just my opinion.\n\n\n> ...the old fork of the extension does not have the import/export mechanism...\n\nIf that \"only\" exports/import scripts, then I am not sure if it's really that important. Everything is neatly organized in gm_scripts and Pale Moon users I assume are familiar with profile backups.\n\nUnless of course your intended changes replace the gm_scripts folder with a more advanced userscript storage system?\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Add-ons • Re: Working on a Greasemonkey fork for Pale Moon",
  "updatedAt": "2026-04-17T22:33:21.000Z"
}