On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 00:17, Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 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 > Cheers, I met with Anne about this today and think you are right here. These are very similiar to links to WebExtensions and reusing the existing type makes sense from a standards + developers perspective. I will close out this one and send out a new Intent to Ship with the corrected details. Thanks for your feedback Dale _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
