On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Evan Martin <[email protected]> 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, non-controversial, in that case it is an extension for sure. > That leaves the "user cannot set the mime type" case. So we're > getting application/octet-stream or whatever and the question is how > to upgrade from that to an extension install. It seems to me the > filename extension is more obvious to a developer than any scary > heuristic. > > 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 > only minimally different from option #1 -- the delta is cases where > you have a .crx that is *not* an extension, but you'll also have this > with corrupt extension files where you ought to have some UI to handle > it anyway) > 3) ignore filename, try sniffing out of other app/octet-stream files. > Seems unpredictable to me. I was suggesting 2), trying to avoid the case where we mistake some existing blob on the web that happens to end in .crx as an extension. - a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
