On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM, canadaduane<[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. I am excited about the new storage / persistence--I just wish I'd
> found out about it sooner. Is there any reason this is not more
> public at the moment? The API seems very nice (http://
> groups.google.com/group/ubiquity-firefox/msg/657e85f40a09c655).
Glad you liked it. Bin is a preferable solution for persistent data as
it is cleared up automatically at [purge].
I'll finish it up soon.
> Will the API remain the same ("Bin")?
Yes, unless people strongly disagree.
> 2. This is the first time I've needed an image that isn't stored
> online somewhere... so I used base64 encoding in some CSS, which is
> then injected into the DOM. Is this a best practice? It seems
> clunky, but maybe it's ok.
A common solution for user(script|style) authors, I think.
> I would think that others
> would also benefit from having jQuery-UI packaged with Ubiquity.
Agreed. The about pages could benefit too.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ubiquity-firefox" 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/ubiquity-firefox?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
