XPI and DMG are more or less ZIP-files, with some extra metadata inside. Some people suggest using the XPI format for _packaging_ also for Chromium. A decision should be based on what is most practical and pedagogical. I like XPI, but using XPI could give Chromium the burden of explaining to users why not all ".XPI files" work.
Inside those packages there can be NPAPI plugins, or XUL (Mozilla- specific). For Safari I saw SIMBL being used for GreaseKit. Is this a standard for Safari? Words. "Plugin", does that make you think of an interpreter (view/edit/ print/...) for file formats? The existing plugin database for NPAPI plugins supports this beleif. "Addon" then, might stand for everything else that you add to the browser? "Services". Chrome understands search services. Bookmark services and others could be supported directly in Chrome, or via an "addon". The current FAQ entry (by Aaron) looks like this: Q. How can I develop extensions for Chromium like in Firefox? A. Chromium doesn't have an extension system yet. This is something we're interested in adding in a future version. Note that Chromium does support NPAPI-style "plugins", such as Adobe Flash and Apple QuickTime. Just after the FAQ was updated, Aaron had to explain further: It is not possible to make Firefox-compatible extensions. Most of them rely on a combination of two Mozilla technologies (XUL and XPCOM), neither of which are available in Chromium. Some of the above might fit into the FAQ? And thanks Aaron for staying with us here :). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
