Closed
Bug 117839
Opened 24 years ago
Closed 24 years ago
XBL files cannot have a "xbl" file extension
Categories
(Core :: XBL, enhancement, P1)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla0.9.8
People
(Reporter: horndog, Assigned: bzbarsky)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
1.03 KB,
patch
|
law
:
review+
hyatt
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Having the binding files clearly marked by file extension would be useful
especially as more sites move to dynamically generated sites powered by
xml/xslt. *.xbl does not conflict with anything useful at the moment with
regards to mime types. And for that matter, why would any XML parser *care*
about the extension? All a parser cares about is that the source is well-formed
and optionally valid. Why is there any constraint about filename?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 1•24 years ago
|
||
To XBL. This would not be hard to hack up, in fact... we would just need to
detect .xbl files as text/xml in the uriloader (fairly simple change).
The icky part is renaming all the files and changing all the links to them....
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: XP Toolkit/Widgets: XUL → XBL
Ever confirmed: true
Comment 2•24 years ago
|
||
Your Web server can serve up XBL as text/xml. Are you concerned about local files?
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 3•24 years ago
|
||
I think the concern is over local files and in particular over files in the
Mozilla source tree.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•24 years ago
|
||
I was under the impression that the parser was hard-coding to *.xml for binding
files.
If it is indeed solely a MIME type issue, then I would consider the matter
closed. It just means that the browser needs a quick tweak to the
extension-to-mimetype list and any web server would be updated (but most access
to XBL or XUL is currently local anyway).
What the Mozilla team uses for a file convention is their own affair. I have no
preference (and even less say) in the matter. My concern was only for outside,
unconnected development. Since I commonly use a great deal of XML and
transformations in my sites, the *.xml extension is growing overused. It's
becoming like all images are *.image and you can only tell the data types after
pulling the file. *.xbl would be a valuable visual cue for me (and I assume
others as well) to use in their own projects. But as before, in response to Mr.
Zbarsky's reply, I feel no great itch to change the way the Mozilla project
handles bindings internally.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 5•24 years ago
|
||
Ah. Ok. In that case, this is a trivial change. Just add "xbl" to the list of
extensions detected as text/xml in
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/uriloader/exthandler/nsExternalHelperApp
Service.cpp#97
hyatt, would that make sense? As a warning, that list of extension-to-type
mappings is _not_ overridable by helper app preferences. Are we _really_ sure
that nothing uses the xbl extension.
Comment 6•24 years ago
|
||
Let's do it. Supply a patch, and I'll sr it.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 7•24 years ago
|
||
Will do on Monday when I get back from vacation and have a tree once more.
taking bug.
Priority: -- → P1
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9.8
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 9•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 10•24 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 64000 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to detect .xbl as text/xml
r=law
Attachment #64000 -
Flags: review+
Comment 11•24 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 64000 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to detect .xbl as text/xml
sr=hyatt
Attachment #64000 -
Flags: superreview+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 12•24 years ago
|
||
checked in.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•