"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:03 PM, John J Foerch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There is a broader issue which I will mention in this context, that we >> as the conkeror user community should discuss whether it is right to >> have site-specific code in conkeror, or whether these modules are more >> appropriately distributed as addons, for example, as Extensions. > > I think it's nice to have well written site-specific code in conkeror > just as it's nice to have modes for languages in Emacs, however such > modes should add rather than subtract from the UI. It's confusing if > labels suddenly function differently on one site but being able to > save the .flv file from a youtube video is more intuitive.
Hi Ævar, While I don't disagree with your point about it being nice to have quality site-specific code, I don't think that comparing programming languages to websites is a fair comparison. Languages don't change much by comparison, and support for language syntax can almost always be based on some specification, formal or informal. Website support in a web browser means peeking into the implementation of the website, and forming dependencies on internal details that, more often than not, were decided for expediency or aesthetics. As we add this kind of code to conkeror, we should be under no illusion that page-modes are of a fundamentally different nature from major-modes. It seems there is consensus that some site-specific code does belong in conkeror. In that case, I'm all for it, and say we should do our best to keep the source organized. Here are my thoughts on the subject.. Put core conkeror under the url chrome://conkeror/. Perhaps optional modules could be in chrome://conkeror-modules/. It seems like as good a name as any. Following from this, core source would have its own directory, and optional source would have its own directory. The directory containing the optional modules would contain a file autoloads.js, which we would maintain by hand, containing autoload functions for all point-of-invocation functions in the optional modes. I don't think it will be an overwhelming clerical task to maintain autoloads.js, and this would avoid the need for a build system. (I suppose it would be possible to have a pre-processor run by the developers to keep this file up-to-date in git, if that seems convenient.) Let's do this right --John _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
