> 1. User makes a single modification to their
monobook.js to include
> the module tool.
> 2. The module tool provides an interface such that they can select the
> modules that interest them
> 3. Modules currently selected are saved somewhere like user:Stevage/modules
> 4. When the user confirms, the tool retrieves the originals and writes
> them to something like user:Stevage/modulecode
> 5. Either the user, or the tool automatically adds a line which
> includes everything in user:Stevage/modulecode as you described above.
Theoretically, yes. I thought about having a similar
system, only the
entire code would be written back to the monobook.js, because it's
protected from other users. However, I'm not sure that it would be
/practical/ to implement it without something like XUL to get the UI
setup - ie. it would be a Mozilla extension.
This is all very sexy. But wouldn't an easy first step just to be gather
the code in one set of pages first? Then users can do "manual" transclusion
to begin with, and the neat interface could come later?