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. Firefox uses the content type "application/x-xpinstall". However, as a Firefox extension developer, I can tell you the content type thing is one of the more frustrating parts of the entire experience. *No* web servers are configured to know that "xpi" files should be served with a special content type, so you end up having to fight with your server, file share, whatever to make installation work. I would like to avoid this headache if we can. 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 downloaded ".crx" files? This would allow the simple case of uploading a crx file somewhere to work, as well as allowing files that don't end in .crx to work for more advanced hosts. Thoughts? Also, for the content-type, we were thinking "application/x-chrome-extension". Thoughts on that? - a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
