I was thinking the other day, if it would be possible to allow users to install scripts to the website, so that they can be used on browsers that don't support user scripts, or don't have the ability to install 3rd party extensions (such as the iPad Safari).

This might sound very bad, installing scripts on a site, but wouldn't the scripts (javascript based as they are now) have the exact same abilities as a user script installed in a browser?

  • 2
    Although a great idea, I think this has far too much potential for abuse. As for security, yes - UserScripts run with pretty much the same privileges as JavaScript code on the page. However, your suggestion doesn't really go into detail on how these scripts would be approved for embedding on the site. Jun 3, 2012 at 19:48
  • 1
    Well if they have the same security restrictions, then won't the potential for abuse will be the same? If that's the case then can't the approving be the same as it is now, anything goes apart from malicious scripts. In fact by making them installable on the site stackexchange can then block them, like apps can be blocked by key.
    – Jonathan.
    Jun 3, 2012 at 20:25

1 Answer 1


The problem with this isn't so much the security (though that's a concern), it's that we don't want the backwards compatibility constraints such blessed installations imply on our HTML and javascript.

As such we're unlikely to ever do something like this, so I'm -ing it.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .