Am Dienstag, den 02.02.2010, 21:32 +0000 schrieb brian m. carlson: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:04PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > > while we are at it, maybe we could take the opportunity and introduce a > > similar scheme for all packages providing mozilla-compatible browser > > plugins as well? > > I hope you mean NPAPI[0] plugins, since those will work on non-Gecko > browsers. In general, there's few good reasons to have plugins that > work only on Gecko browsers, especially since that means that a large > number of browsers that Debian supports (such as Konqueror and > Webkit-based browsers like Epiphany) are left without useful plugins. > > > I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach > > these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that > > perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too > > long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like > > xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming > > scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think? > > I think xul-plugin- is only okay if it will only work on Gecko-based > browsers. It is inaccurate and misleading to use xul-plugin- unless the > plugin is designed to do something specifically with Gecko. I would > suggest npapi- as a prefix for plugins that use that interface. I would > suggest that plugins that do not use that interface adopt it forthwith. > :-) npapi- prefix is not very user friendly. It reminds me of the PCMCIA card. xul-plugin- sounds better, but do not fit. The least evil proposal was to append -browserplugin. Better suggestions are welcome. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil