On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Eric Doughty-Papassideris <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 April 2011 23:17, Henning Jungkurth <[email protected]> wrote: >> - For email-handling in QS there is a mediator (QSMailMediator), that >> handles the common email actions ("Email Item...", "Email to..."...). >> That might be a good place to start looking for ideas on how to design >> that. > But the mediators that exist only handle a single choice for actions, > which is good enough for e-mail, but not for QS to adapt to your use > of browsers. I guess I'm wondering whether it's worthwhile to adapt > QS-core support so that it's more aware of browser-type apps, or > whether the mediator and everything like that should get it's own > plugin.
I don't really know much about the mediators or other special object thingies (like QSBundleDrawingHandlers and QSFileObjectCreationHandlers). If you know more about any of that, please let me know. I would love to get more documentation about these things. > This could have the further advantage of exploring the current web > page with another set of plugins. Say I'm looking at a specific photo > in flikr, it would be pretty cool for QS to go through the HTML get > it's hand on the "content" of that web page instead of just it's URL. I wouldn't combine "Current Web Page" with any of that. Even when you're on flicker, you might just want the url of the page. Rather add a "Web Page Content" (or something) proxy object. But apart from that, also a nice idea. :-) >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Eric Doughty-Papassideris >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi all, this talk of getting a chrome plugin in reminds me that the >>> firefox plugin is broken but discretely so (it parses bookmarks.htm >>> which is only up to date if you use a special about:config style >>> setting in firefox, bookmarks and the like moved to an sqlite store at >>> some point). >>> This, with the added confusion of "Current Web Page" meaning Safari's >>> and so make me wonder wether browsers, being such an ominous tool, >>> shouldn't be better handled, as in, have one "agnostic" browser plugin >>> that adds current web page and so one, and a mediator system for >>> picking what that means. This would allow for one Bookmarks catalog >>> entry that indexes all the browsers present for example, and would >>> normalise how QS and browsers interact. >>> Now (as in Chrome and Firefox and Opera plugins lagging behind) might >>> be a good time to think about this. Any suggestions on how to >>> structure that ? >>> I use most browsers interchangeably, I really haven't settled for any, >>> so I realise my use case might be uncommon, or is it ? >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Eric Doughty-Papassideris >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14 April 2011 19:12, Ian Hay <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I use the sync feature and there is still a Bookmark file where Patrick >>>> said his was, doesn't mean there isn't something else though since I >>>> didn't always use the sync feature !! >>>> >>>> -ian >>>> >>>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 16:23, Rob McBroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Apr 14, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Patrick Robertson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Looks like the Chrome Bookmarks are stored in a .json file, which means >>>>>> the plugin would just need to open up the file (App >>>>>> Support/Google/Chrome/Default/Bookmarks for me) use a .json parser (I >>>>>> use JSON Framework in my 1Password plugin) then make them URLs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Notes for the mythical Google Chrome Plug-in developer: >>>>> >>>>> I was thinking a proper browser plug-in would also provide access to >>>>> history and a proxy object referring to “the URL of the page I’m >>>>> currently looking at”. Looking at the AppleScript support in Chrome to >>>>> see if the proxy object would be possible (I think it would), I noticed >>>>> some references to “bookmark item”. >>>>> >>>>> On the one hand, it might be safer to get a list of bookmarks via >>>>> AppleScript, so if the internal format ever changes, it still works. On >>>>> the other hand, that only works if Chrome is running, which is not ideal. >>>>> Personally, I think it’s worth the risk to go to the JSON file directly. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone know what happens if you use the service that syncs bookmarks? >>>>> Things to check for would be: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Does the browser still store them locally at all, or does it just rely >>>>> on the remote info? >>>>> 2. Does it still use “Default”, or does it create a new folder based on >>>>> your Google Account? >>>>> >>>>> Have fun, mythical developer! :) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Rob McBroom >>>>> <http://www.skurfer.com/> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
