On Dec 16, 8:50 pm, Mike Belshe <[email protected]> wrote: > My thought is that extensions should not apply in the incognito mode.
That would be terrible. Imagine a usability extension (zoom part of the view, support for alternate input method, etc) and it would go away when you're incognito. Sorry to disagree but if I say they absolutely must work in incognito mode. > Another option is to have scoping of extensions; globally or profile based. > But that sounds complicated. > > Maybe for now just implement profile-scoped extensions, and if this is > obviously insufficient then you can add global scopes? Let me propose a slight variation: Extensions are installed globally, enabled or disabled per-profile and globally set as enabled or disabled by default. Here is the rationale: - Based on the fact users want different extensions (moslty because they like different behaviors/UI/etc) we need to be able to selectively enable them per-profile. - IMO, the main argument for global extensions (or even profile options) for vendors is to set extensions and options before any user account is created. Say you are Lenovo and you want an extension for reporting issues to Lenovo but you do not have a place to put because user's haven't created any profiles yet, they haven't even bought the machine. If you can globally set what extensions (and options) are enabled (selected) by default then each time a new user starts Chrome for the first time, all those things get set into their (new) profile. From that point, users are free to disable and change any extensions and options they want. - Itai --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
