I'd like to avoid the "An unknown party wishes to install an extension." phrasing. It's scary and I don't think this actually helps the users make a decision (and often this will happen in legitimate cases where the developers simply can't set the MIME type). Could we do something like: "Are you sure you want to install extension hosted on site.com?"
-Nick On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
