On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to clarify, you understand we're talking about a binary package > here, right? Not a text file.
Oh, I didn't realize that, but I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. > Chrome extensions are distributed in what are essentially zip files > with some extra metadata tacked on. The first several bytes of that > zip file is currently always "Cr24". You're saying it should be > "CHROME EXTENSION" instead. Is there any specific value in being > closer to the way the appcache manifests work, other than having a > longer signature? I don't think it matters that much. Cr24 is probably fine too. The risk in using something short and cryptic is that someone else might pick the same four byte sequence for another purpose. (Although, I don't know of any others that use Cr24.) Following the appcache precedent seems to have some benefit at a low cost. Adam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
