On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 2:10 PM Dale Harvey <dhar...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > If you _do_ invent a new one shared with other browser vendors, please > > don't use an "x-" prefix in anything new. > > Thanks, I got notice of others concerns about this as well and have been > looped in to discuss this more with standards before shipping. Once we have > something agreeable will make sure to update this thread. > If the file format is a Gecko-specific standard add-on .xpi (of a specific type) then it's not going to be supported by other browsers (each browser has their own signature requirements even though all Web Extensions are basically ZIP archives). Since it is the same file format and extension you might as well use the historical "application/x-xpinstall" we use for add-ons. It's not making the "X-" Content-Type problem any worse, and for sites that already have a type mapping for .xpi (granted, not many) they won't have to jump through hoops setting up a different one for use depending on where it's served. If you do use a different Content-Type then you should probably use something other than .xpi for the file extension, even if it's the same inside. -Dan Veditz _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
