Extension specific reviews would seem over the top, however it would make sense if users would need to ask for permissions in the manifest.json. This would potentially allow the extension gallery to log extensions with various UI surface elements someday and would make developers more aware why and when to use various UI surface elements.
Either way, I was discussing this with another developer a few days ago and we came to the conclusion that it is no use to limit developers - ever -. Forcing developers to follow good practises simply doesn't work, rather than that it is important to inform developers as well as possible. On Jan 21, 6:12 pm, Daniel Wagner-Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/1/21 PhistucK <[email protected]>: > > > Using Browser Action as a general action and Page Action as a page specific > > action are the purposes of these two features, I believe. > > Merging the two into one (be it Browser Action or Page Action) kind of loses > > the intended purpose. > > However, having multiple (two, actually - one and one, but not more than > > one) user interface surfaces for really related actions - seem appropriate > > in cases such as this (and I am sure there are more). > > +1 > > > Maybe you could add a review for extensions that use a Browser Action and a > > Page Action altogether, like you have for "file://*/" permissions and NPAPI. > > If you see that these are not really 'two features', but one feature that > > simply has a general manner and a page specific manner, approve them. > > Seems over the top...
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" 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-extensions?hl=en.
