install.rdf standard?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

install.rdf standard?

retrev
I'm designing an xpinstall like system for an existing app (not using
xul/xpcom so I can't use the xpinstall engine). I like the xpi and
install.rdf formats and I'm considering using something similar for my
installer. I'd love to use the install.rdf as is but I'm concerned
that the spec isn't really written to be a general standard...i.e. it
references specific firefox versions when talking about newer fields,
etc. Now onto my question. Since the format seems reasonably stable,
is there any chance the install.rdf and xpi file formats might become
RFCs? If not, are these documents covered under the MPI? If they are
likely going to remain internal mozilla docs, I might propose a
similar format as an RFC but decouple it from the XPInstall
implementation. If I did this, I wouldn't want to violate any
licensing, etc. Any thoughts on this?
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-xpinstall mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpinstall
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: install.rdf standard?

Philip Chee
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:42:49 -0800 (PST), retrev wrote:

> I'm designing an xpinstall like system for an existing app (not using
> xul/xpcom so I can't use the xpinstall engine). I like the xpi and
> install.rdf formats and I'm considering using something similar for my
> installer. I'd love to use the install.rdf as is but I'm concerned
> that the spec isn't really written to be a general standard...i.e. it
> references specific firefox versions when talking about newer fields,
> etc. Now onto my question. Since the format seems reasonably stable,
> is there any chance the install.rdf and xpi file formats might become
> RFCs? If not, are these documents covered under the MPI? If they are
> likely going to remain internal mozilla docs, I might propose a
> similar format as an RFC but decouple it from the XPInstall
> implementation. If I did this, I wouldn't want to violate any
> licensing, etc. Any thoughts on this?

Even mozilla is moving away from RDF in general and install.rdf in
particular. The install metadata seems to be moving towards flat files
like chrome.manifest.

Instead of RDF you might consider using generic XML.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
* TagZilla 0.066.6

_______________________________________________
dev-tech-xpinstall mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpinstall
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: install.rdf standard?

Justin Wood (Callek)-2
Philip Chee wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:42:49 -0800 (PST), retrev wrote:
>
>> I'm designing an xpinstall like system for an existing app (not using
>> xul/xpcom so I can't use the xpinstall engine). I like the xpi and
>> install.rdf formats and I'm considering using something similar for my
>> installer. I'd love to use the install.rdf as is but I'm concerned
>> that the spec isn't really written to be a general standard...i.e. it
>> references specific firefox versions when talking about newer fields,
>> etc. Now onto my question. Since the format seems reasonably stable,
>> is there any chance the install.rdf and xpi file formats might become
>> RFCs? If not, are these documents covered under the MPI? If they are
>> likely going to remain internal mozilla docs, I might propose a
>> similar format as an RFC but decouple it from the XPInstall
>> implementation. If I did this, I wouldn't want to violate any
>> licensing, etc. Any thoughts on this?
>
> Even mozilla is moving away from RDF in general and install.rdf in
> particular. The install metadata seems to be moving towards flat files
> like chrome.manifest.
>
> Instead of RDF you might consider using generic XML.
>

Ummm, phil; I at least, do not know of any current *plans* to drop, or
even deprecate "install.rdf" (though I do agree and know that Mozilla as
a platform is moving away from RDF as a whole).

If there is such a plan in specific regard to install.rdf could you
please post a link to somewhere where you read/heard that.

--
Thanks,
~Justin Wood (Callek)
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-xpinstall mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpinstall
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: install.rdf standard?

Philip Chee
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:56:44 -0500, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

>> Even mozilla is moving away from RDF in general and install.rdf in
>> particular. The install metadata seems to be moving towards flat files
>> like chrome.manifest.

>> Instead of RDF you might consider using generic XML.

> Ummm, phil; I at least, do not know of any current *plans* to drop, or
> even deprecate "install.rdf" (though I do agree and know that Mozilla as
> a platform is moving away from RDF as a whole).

> If there is such a plan in specific regard to install.rdf could you
> please post a link to somewhere where you read/heard that.

Well I disagree with this of course but there was some discussion that
RDF support be dropped from Mozilla2. If the RDF parsing code is removed
then install.rdf (or anything.rdf) will be dead in the water so as to speak.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
* TagZilla 0.066.6

_______________________________________________
dev-tech-xpinstall mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpinstall
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: install.rdf standard?

Robert Strong
Philip Chee wrote:
>
> Well I disagree with this of course but there was some discussion that
> RDF support be dropped from Mozilla2. If the RDF parsing code is removed
> then install.rdf (or anything.rdf) will be dead in the water so as to speak.
>    
Last I checked with bsmedberg the plan is to include a basic RDF parser.
Though we might go with a simpler format in the future there is no plan
to do so at present and we would more than likely still support
install.rdf if for no other reason than backwards compatibility. For
example, we would need to parse the extensions.rdf in Moz 2 in order to
migrate it to sqlite.

Robert
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-xpinstall mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpinstall
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: install.rdf standard?

Georg Maaß
In reply to this post by Philip Chee
Philip Chee wrote:
> Well I disagree with this of course but there was some discussion that
> RDF support be dropped from Mozilla2. If the RDF parsing code is removed
> then install.rdf (or anything.rdf) will be dead in the water so as to speak.

There was such a discusson to drop rdf, so we used install.js, but what
really happened, was install.js support has been dropped in XulRunner,
when 1.9b2pre came. As a result of that, we have big work on developing
a replacement for the lost functionality, because install.rdf is less
powerful than install.js was. We did not have trouble on Vista. It
worked well even there with no trouble.
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-xpinstall mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpinstall
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: install.rdf standard?

Philip Chee
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:32:48 +0200, Georg Maaß wrote:

> Philip Chee wrote:
>> Well I disagree with this of course but there was some discussion that
>> RDF support be dropped from Mozilla2. If the RDF parsing code is removed
>> then install.rdf (or anything.rdf) will be dead in the water so as to speak.
>
> There was such a discusson to drop rdf, so we used install.js, but what
> really happened, was install.js support has been dropped in XulRunner,
> when 1.9b2pre came. As a result of that, we have big work on developing
> a replacement for the lost functionality, because install.rdf is less
> powerful than install.js was. We did not have trouble on Vista. It
> worked well even there with no trouble.

That was because you were using an account on Vista with admin
privileges. You would have noticed the problems with install.js if you
tried to install while logged in to a restricted account.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]It doesn't work, but I'm working on it.
* TagZilla 0.066.6

_______________________________________________
dev-tech-xpinstall mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpinstall
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: install.rdf standard?

Georg Maaß
Philip Chee wrote:
> That was because you were using an account on Vista with admin
> privileges. You would have noticed the problems with install.js if you
> tried to install while logged in to a restricted account.

No, thats not the case. The reason is, that I did not install to any
restricted place but only to locations, where each user has full access.

Inside the applications folder installation fails. It also fails on
Windows XP; so this trouble is not new to Windows Vista. Inside My
documents folder installation works, but then the application can not be
used by other persons. But in Folders or partions where all Users have
full access independent from being administrator or not, everything
works well.
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-xpinstall mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpinstall