Are these greasmonkey scripts submitted by users? If I understand correctly, users can actively mash up websites by adding their own widgets... SmartTags has an evil Redmond connotation! We all put anti-smart-tags meta tags in our sites a few years back.

Anil: I am still very much opposed to Smart Tags. I am also very much opposed to Google's AutoLink. However: I am firmly in favour of Opera User JavaScript and Greasmonkey:

With user scripting capabilities, the user is very much in control over which pages he wants altered in what ways, AutoLinks and SmartTags is an all-or-nothing approach where you buy into Microsoft or Google's idea of how a page should be altered.

Wait. Weren't Smart Tags links dictated by Microsoft? How is something controlled by a centralized monopolistic company applied indiscriminantly across all sites the same as something controlled by individual users to alter their user experience in ways they choose?

From the "tampering with the design" standpoint, sure, very similar, but unless I'm missing something (which is without question a strong probability) the two have extremely little in common.

Also, Smart Tags were enabled in the Windows XP beta by default. Google's Autolink and Greasemonkey scripts both require action by users to enable. Most users never change defaults, which is why Smart Tags were so dangerous.

Well, Rob, you could create and install your own Smart Tags, though Microsoft did bundle its own default tags with IE. If I'm not mistaken, Greasemonkey comes bundled with some scripts as well.

More to the point, the objections raised here are the nuanced counterexamples of technical experts. Most people who objected to Smart Tags did so on the grounds that "they change what I write". Those same people, now seeing the benefits instead of just being introduced to a framework, aren't realizing they're arguing against themselves.

Andy, your point stands, but users would still have had to take action to install/enable additional Smart Tags. Most arguments against the tags at the time were based on a slippery slope argument, and in that sense the requirement of action on the user's part made both technologies equivalent from the standpoint of their future potential for abuse by the creators.

To put a finer point on it: Many of the people who were against page modification by user agents in 2001 have changed their minds. But being that explicit takes the fun out of it all.

Anil, I totally disagree. The people that objected to SmartTags because "they change what I write" object to Google AutoLink and Greasemonkey today. Those are the people who don't care whether it's empowering users or not; they just don't want the rights of the "content producer" mucked around with.

Oh, and Greasemonkey doesn't come with any scripts.

Just an observation Anil, but whenever this topic comes up you create large groups of opinion holders that don't seem to exist. Where are these hordes of people who were against smart tags on the basis of their pages re-writing ability who are now enthusiastic supporters of Greasemonkey?

Alan, people object to whoring their site's content out in the form of paid links to subscribers through SmartTags. There is generally no objection to adding to functionality (and thus value) when developers (or users) want to extend capabilities, as in the case of Greasemonkey.