On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>>
>> That is a good idea. We could just use the same download UI and
>> everything. When you click "yes" in the shelf, it just leads to the
>> normal install dialog.
>
> Note, the pla
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> That is a good idea. We could just use the same download UI and
> everything. When you click "yes" in the shelf, it just leads to the
> normal install dialog.
Note, the plan is to change when the download prompting occurs to be based
on h
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>>
>> We should use the same messaging that we use for downloaded
>> executables. Or, at least we should not make downloaded extensions
>> seem less scary than downloaded executables.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
> We should use the same messaging that we use for downloaded
> executables. Or, at least we should not make downloaded extensions
> seem less scary than downloaded executables.
That is a good idea. We could just use the same download UI a
We should use the same messaging that we use for downloaded
executables. Or, at least we should not make downloaded extensions
seem less scary than downloaded executables.
-Darin
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Nick Baum wrote:
> Not all extensions will be hosted in the gallery, some will
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Nick Baum wrote:
> Not all extensions will be hosted in the gallery, some will be private
> (hosted on intranet, etc).
Maybe the thing to do is have the confirmation interaction look
similar to the gallery install page for a just-uploaded extension.
That way we
Not all extensions will be hosted in the gallery, some will be private
(hosted on intranet, etc).
-Nick
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> 2009/5/11 Nick Baum :
> > I'd like to avoid the "An unknown party wishes to install an extension."
> phrasing. It's scary and I don't th
2009/5/11 Nick Baum :
> I'd like to avoid the "An unknown party wishes to install an extension."
> phrasing. It's scary and I don't think this actually helps the users make a
> decision (and often this will happen in legitimate cases where the developers
> simply can't set the MIME type).
> Cou
I'd like to avoid the "An unknown party wishes to install an extension."
phrasing. It's scary and I don't think this actually helps the users make a
decision (and often this will happen in legitimate cases where the
developers simply can't set the MIME type).
Could we do something like:
"Are you su
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> Just to clarify, you understand we're talking about a binary package
> here, right? Not a text file.
Oh, I didn't realize that, but I'm not sure it makes much of a difference.
> Chrome extensions are distributed in what are essentially zip
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>> Ok, thanks for the recommendation. Currently the magic string is
>> "Cr24". Not enough characters?
>
> I suggested the above to be analogous to HTML5's appcache manifests:
>
> http://www.w
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> Ok, thanks for the recommendation. Currently the magic string is
> "Cr24". Not enough characters?
I suggested the above to be analogous to HTML5's appcache manifests:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#a-sample-manifest
In
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> Ugg.
I know. What can I say? We are caught between idealism and practicality.
> 1) If the response has the right MIME type, then we can believe that
> the site has endorsed the extension. As Adam says, "Site
> http://foo.bar.com wises to inst
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
>> Options here (I can't tell if you're suggesting #2 or #3):
>> 1) filename extension only (what I'm suggesting)
>> 2) require both filename extension and sniffing to match (seems to be
>>
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
> You have two use cases in mind here, and I think your solutions are mixing
> them.
> In the (rare) case where someone has the correct mime type set, we
> should obey the mime type and do no sniffing. I think that's
> non-controversial.
Yes,
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> Right now, the extension system treats any downloaded file that ends
> in ".crx" as an extension.
>
> This seems like a bad idea, and that we should use a content type.
You have two use cases in mind here, and I think your solutions are mixi
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> I know that content sniffing is a very dirty business, but our crx
> files have a very specific format, including a few signature bytes at
> the very beginning. What if we supported both a content-type *and* did
> content sniffing of down
17 matches
Mail list logo
