Search Engine Editor

[_yup_]

Search Engine Editor is an extension for Firefox (up to version 57), Seamonkey, Pale Moon, Iceape-UXP, Basilisk and other browsers that support extensions created using XUL overlay technology.

This extension allows you to edit search engine plugins installed in the browser.



The editor is invoked by a button, which extension adds to the browser’s Search Engines Manager.



Additionally, the extension allows you to create and automatically install a search plugin for any Web site that has a search form (a search field) on its pages. For this goal the extension replaces the Add a Keyword for this Search item of this field’s context menu with the Create and Install Plugin for this Search menu item.




Please note:

• The browser does not allow the same name to be used for more then one plugin at a time.
• The browser does not allow to change its default plugins. If you want to change one of those plugins, choose any unused name for the edited version.
• In fact, the browser does not delete its default plugins, but just hides them from the user. For this reason even after such "deletion" you never will be allowed to use their names for any other plugins.
• As a plugin’s icon you may use everything: a local file (specified by a name in the format suitable for the operating system, or in the cross-platform "file:///..." format), a remote file (specified by a URL), or an image encoded as data URI.
  At plugin saving the image will be proportionally scaled down to 16x16 pixels and converted to data URI, so whatever happens to the source file afterwards, it will not affect the plugin.

The home page of Search Engine Editor is http://yup.lh1.in/AddOns/SearchEngineEditor/
Also I hope it will be available soon at https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/searchengineeditor/

[Michaell]

By install plugin I hope you mean search engine kind and not the external application kind that shows in Add-ons Manager.
This:

PM-semgr.png

Not this:

PM-plugins.png

[_yup_]

By install plugin I hope you mean search engine kind and not the external application kind that shows in Add-ons Manager.

Yes, of course.

There is some ambiguity in the Mozilla terminology ("plugin", "search plugin", "search engine"), and even inconstancy between their applications (especially between localizations). For example, in the localized version that I use, the title of the Search Engine Manager is a verbatim translation of its English version: "Search engine list management", whereas a string below it ("You have the following search engines installed") is translated as: "You have the following plugins for search engines installed".

The best way to deal with with this mess is to use the "search engine" term for the Web server that performs the search, and the "search plugin" term - for the piece of data, that instructs the browser how to communicate with that search engine.

Installed search plugins appear only in the Search Engines Manager, and never in the browser's Add-ons (Extensions/Themes/Plugins).

[FranklinDM]

Also I hope it will be available soon at https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/searchengineeditor/

Reviewed and approved. Thanks!

Off-topic:
In the future, however, do note that Selene Code syntax does not apply to the add-on page content on Phoebus. I'll look into it tomorrow if I can get a PR that should fix the broken Formatting Syntax link on the add-ons site.

[sidology]

Useful, thank you.

[Michaell]

I tried it. Didn't work. Showed as installed but that's it. No button. No change to menu. No errors in Error Console. No need to troubleshoot for me unless more people report a similar result.

Also, I want to point out some pages already allow adding search plugins with Pale Moon's own code. But certainly not every page that has a search box.

[suzyne]

Nice, thank you! I haven't tried to add a extra search engine from a web site, but it works on my Pale Moon to edit an existing search engine.

A little feedback.

When adding a parameter I assumed that the Editor would automatically add the & between new parameters. That's just an expectation, which may be wrong, but I found I had to add an ampersand so the URL would work.

Clipboard_06-27-2025_01.png

[_yup_]

When adding a parameter I assumed that the Editor would automatically add the & between new parameters.

No. The editor does not adds ampersands, and it should not to do this.

What you have found is a bug in the browser. I am aware of it, but just have no time to create a bug report (right now I am busy with an important improvement of the extension).

That's just an expectation, which may be wrong, but I found I had to add an ampersand so the URL would work.

Usually a <Url> tag in an XML file that describes a search engine has one of two forms:

1. Initial part of the URL (without parameters) separately, and parameters separately:

   Code: Select all

   <Url type="text/html" method="get" template="https://www.ecosia.org/search">
     <Param name="q" value="{searchTerms}"/>
     <Param name="addon" value="opensearch"/>
     <Param name="h" value="hello"/>
   </Url>

   Ecosia2.png
2. Complete URL in one string:

   Code: Select all

   <Url type="text/html" method="get" template="https://www.ecosia.org/search?q={searchTerms}&amp;addon=opensearch&amp;h=hello"></Url>

   Ecosia1.png

For both these forms Pale Moon constructs identical URLs when sending a request to the server.

But nothing prohibits creating a mixed form, where initial part of the URL and some parameters are in the "template", and the rest of parameters are in the <Params> tags. Technically such XML is completely valid, and Pale Moon accepts it. But then it constructs a wrong URL when sending a requests to the server.

So now (while the bug is not yet fixed) just do not use the mixed form.

[suzyne]

So now (while the bug is not yet fixed) just do not use the mixed form.

Understood. So if I modify (making a copy) of an existing search engine where I want to add more parameters, then I need to remove and copy the parameters from the URL down into the bottom section of the dialogue before adding the extra ones.

[_yup_]

So if I modify (making a copy) of an existing search engine where I want to add more parameters, then I need to remove and copy the parameters from the URL down into the bottom section of the dialogue before adding the extra ones.

Not necessarily. Instead of that, you can append your parameters to the string in the "URL" field (or edit it in any other way).

[Moonchild]

So now (while the bug is not yet fixed) just do not use the mixed form.

It's not a bug; it's just not supported. You have to use one or the other when constructing your searchplugins.
Of course it's perfectly viable for an extension to convert one form to another (i.e. to deconstruct a url with parameters and convert it to the more native XML format where parameters are passed as elements)

[_yup_]

Of course it's perfectly viable for an extension to convert one form to another

I've been thinking about this way already. The POST method is what prevents me from doing this.

Indeed, a POST request where URL contains a part of parameters is very unusual. But if the Web site authors have decided to use it, I should not interfere.

At initial stage of development I created a test Web page with such form and investigated what the browser sends from it. The browser follows the form literally: all parameters from form elements went to the request body, and all parameters that were in the "action" URL remained in the request URL. And it is up to server how to process such request.

It's not a bug; it's just not supported.

On bugzilla.mozilla.org everything is called a bug, even "I don't like a color of ..."
And here we have a case of possible input data whose correct handling is not implemented in the program.

Of course, I can add yet one check to the extension and do not allow to save such plugins, but I do not think this is a proper way - because of: "What if this plugin initially was of this kind?", and "What will do browser if such plugin will be installed from the server?"

Yesterday I found an XML file with multiple <Url> tags of "text/html" type. The current version of extension does not support such files properly, so now I am essentially remaking it - just to allow to edit such rare files.

[suzyne]

I am probably missing some important technical detail, but...

Why can't the plugin simply insert the necessary & for the first parameter when creating from a "mixed" URL?

Does it matter that it is not technically a "proper" solution because of the current way that Pale Moon works with the two different XML representations of the "template" vs "parameters"?

[_yup_]

Why can't the plugin simply insert the necessary & for the first parameter when creating from a "mixed" URL?

1. This is an ugly solution (at least visually).
2. Let imagine that you have some plugin where everything is in the "template". During editing you have added some "parameters", and extension have added the & to the parameter name. And some later (after edited plugin saving) you decide that you also want to change the GET method to POST. What then? What should extension do with parameter?
   The server expects to receive a parameter name without the &, but for extension this character is just a legitimate part of the parameter name, and there is no any hint that it should be deleted.

Does it matter that it is not technically a "proper" solution because of the current way that Pale Moon works with the two different XML representations of the "template" vs "parameters"?

The extension supports many different browsers. What if it will be installed to the one that does not have this bug?

Right now instead of mangling the parameter name you can append an & to the "template" string.

Perhaps, in the next version I will do the same when plugin uses the mixed scheme and the method is GET. This should make Pale Moon happy and not brake browsers without the bug.

[suzyne]

Why can't the plugin simply insert the necessary & for the first parameter when creating from a "mixed" URL?

1. This is an ugly solution (at least visually).
2. Let imagine that you have some plugin where everything is in the "template"...
   
   ...
   ...

That all makes sense, and I fully expected there would be good reasons for not doing what I suggested. But in that case, can I suggest that a short note needs to be made about this issue the Pale Moon plugin download page for the extension?

Otherwise, users like me will try to do what seems perfectly reasonable, but will think that Search Engine Editor is buggy or idiosyncratic.

[_yup_]

But in that case, can I suggest that a short note needs to be made about this issue the Pale Moon plugin download page for the extension?

I would prefer to implement a workaround with adding an & at the end of URL (as I have wrote above).

The version with it and yet one important improvement will be finished tomorrow.

[suzyne]

The version with it and yet one important improvement will be finished tomorrow.

Wonderful! Thank you again for your work.

[_yup_]

Finally, the next version is released.

What’s new

[+] Support for any number of URLs of any types, that will be found in the plugin being opened (even if that types are not supported by the browser).
[+] Possibility to add and delete tabs with URLs and their parameters.
[+] Possibility to change the type of URLs (after double-clicking the tab).
[+] A workaround to circumvent the browser’s inability to process some combinations of the URL parameters.
[*] The tabs order is not predefined anymore. Now it is the same as URLs order in the plugin being opened. (Mainly, it is irrelevant. Only the order of URLs of the same type can matter.)

[_yup_]

Version 1.2

What’s new

[+] Possibility to install plugins from local files.
[+] Possibility to save the plugin being edited to a local file.

[Drugwash]

How does one add a search plugin manually from information that is not a web page form or a local file?

I'm already using Search Engine Creator 1.0.1 (modified) that can do that but it lacks editing capability. Adding the ability to create a search plugin from scratch in your extension would complete it making the old extension redundant. I believe adding a Tools menu item which opens the editor would be enough for that.