{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihcf76sccejqczhyihpeeftwepqkdjwb4da5chcm7lovpgjtypjry",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mpg3e62q2qt2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33298&p=276092#p276092",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-29T08:04:23.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> So it's a pure semantics thing? Extensions are autonomous and it makes sense their code can't display options while disabled.\n>\n> User scripts don't have that autonomy and are managed by an extension. If nothing else, from UI design perspective, it's weird to have a button that doesn't do anything. The equivalent button is hidden on extensions page in that case. Personally, I'd make it work regardless, especially since you also have enable/disable option in the dialog.\n>\n> Stylem, which also extends about:addons page, also lets you edit disabled user styles.\n\nIt's one of those design choices that was made, either by the original Greasemonkey developer or the old fork developer, that I don't exactly understand what is the point or what is the reason behind it. I had the intention to make the option page work, even when userscripts are disabled, when I was redesigning the options page, but I simply didn't know how. (I was already distracted by so many changes in the extension, including the architecture redesign) XML is my weak spot, and it was showing, no matter how great my Javascript skills were.\n\nIt is still something that I intend to look more into, hopefully I'm able to pull it off, by the next version of the extension. (not implying that there is currently an active development of a new version, right now) I'll checkout Stylem and see if this mechanism can be borrowed from Lootyhoof or how is it gonna go.\n\nP.S. pull requests are welcome, if you're able to do it in a local change of your extension copy.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Add-ons • Re: Working on a Greasemonkey fork for Pale Moon",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-29T08:04:23.000Z"
}