* Obey Arthur Liu <arthur at milliways.fr> [2008-03-28 02:04:50]: > Matthew Toseland a ?crit : > > On Wednesday 26 March 2008 10:42, Jano wrote: > >> > >> This plus a torbutton-like extension would be nice. > >> > > What would you suggest that any such extension would do? > > > Hijack ahead. > > I read the thread so far and I think that the extension solution is the > most viable. > * Firefox profiles has proven unstable. It clearly has never been > designed for shipping "custom navigation profiles". > * Hacking javascript handling into the html code involves tampering with > the data, which is not good. I'm not sure it would help either. What > would it do ? Rewrite the DOM-tree asynchronously ? That would > fundamentally be like rewriting part of Firefox in Javascript (!). > * Changing the behavior of the http server to make Firefox behave > differently seems contorted and unreliable. I mean, make the server > behave *very* oddly to influence the client into working differently ? > * Shipping a portable Firefox would be problematic in regard of updates, > size, code to maintain.. Would work under Linux though (compile it all > static and patch it with custom profile paths...) but we'll probably > have to call it freefox or icefreeweaselnet or... > > An extension would solve most problems in a manageable way. > This extension would : > * allow a much higher number of connections to the freenet http server > * replace inline images with special images : requested on freenet, > loading chunks, unavailable...; and would turn into the original image > when available > * display a status panel (sidebar ?) with the status of each element on > the current page > * maybe provide other miscellaneous useful functions such as detecting > plain-text CHKs and offering (contextual menu ?) to send it to Frost or > FUQID for example. > > This extension would be activable per-window (or maybe even per-tab ?), > would be visible when activated (different address box color..) and > would inherit settings to child tabs/windows. > > > This would need some sideband access to the Freenet node but should be > manageable on the node side. > Most individual functions already exist in some form in other extensions > : per-site exemption for fasterfox exists somewhat, inline images > replacement exists (there's an extension called My Image Here)... > > I don't believe a reasonable server-side solution can be found that > would attain similar objectives short of shipping 50kb of Javascript > with each html file and some other reasons. An extension at least is a > clean solution, it would be the most fitting into the design of Firefox. > It wouldn't be the easiest to do but would provide a solution that > doesn't look like a stop-gap one. > > What would you think of such a GSoC proposal ?
It's not a three months job, hardly a 3days one for someone who knows firefox's internals. I'm reluctant to deal with a browser extension because maintaining it *will* be a PITA. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080328/64c065e7/attachment.pgp>
