1236807 - Encourage FF and TB dictionary authors to make their add-ons available for SeaMonkey

Status: ASSIGNED

(SeaMonkey :: Project Organization, enhancement)

Description

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Currently the dictionary download pages urgently need some maintenance. On Problem: there are several dictionaries available for FF and TB, but not for SeaMonkey. List for these dictionaries: see <https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/01/05/dictionaries/>

So we should encourage the authors to make available their add-ons if they are compatible with SM.


Test proceeding
---------------
More or less all the same like "Bug 1236366 - Encourage dictionary authors to expand SeaMonkey compatibility version range"

I think 1 single test / dictionary should be enough, I do not expect problems.

Comment 1

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

Considering that spell dictionaries are external add-ons, not integral with SeaMonkey, I suppose that they fall within "Community/User Relations, Marketing/Press/PR" which is part of the description of the "Project Organization" component.

Comment 2

[Rainer Bielefeld]

@Francis K:
Can you help a little with testing dictionaries, here or in Bug 1236366?

Comment 3

[Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] (he/him)]

If dictionaries work on SeaMonkey without any changes, it might be useful for SeaMonkey to be more flexible about allowing their installation even if the compatibility info isn't right. I don't know if that's a change in Toolkit code, though. But I do believe it would be more effective than trying to get all dictionary add-on devs to change their compatibility info.

Comment 4

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

(In reply to Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] from comment #3)
> If dictionaries work on SeaMonkey without any changes, it might be useful
> for SeaMonkey to be more flexible about allowing their installation even if
> the compatibility info isn't right. I don't know if that's a change in
> Toolkit code, though. But I do believe it would be more effective than
> trying to get all dictionary add-on devs to change their compatibility info.

The code that determines compatability info is core Toolkit, in m-c, we have no way to tweak those levers without forking gecko.

Comment 5

[Rainer Bielefeld]

We have some misunderstanding here, may be my description was not precise enoug. 

The intention of this bug is not to encourage dictionary authors to make their add-ons COMPATIBLE for SeaMonkey, but to make their dicts. AVAILABLE for SeaMonkey (on <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/language-tools/>). Dictionary-add-ons what work with SM without problem should be listed on that page, but some are not. The question is under what conditions a dictionary will be listed at /seamonkey/language-tools/. 

An example: " Corretor para Português de Portugal 16.1.3.6" installs and works with SM 2.39 perfectly. Currently the suspect is that missing
  <!-- Seamonkey -->
     <em:targetApplication>
       <Description>
         <em:id>{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}</em:id> 
causes the problem, the author will create a version with that in header.

But it would be better to *know* under what conditions a dictionary will be listed at /seamonkey/language-tools/ instead of finding out by trial and error.

Who can help?

For compatibility issues we have "Bug 1236366 - Encourage dictionary authors to expand SeaMonkey compatibility version range"; we will see if always the range is the problem.

Comment 6

[Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] (he/him)]

Okay, I misunderstood the objective of this bug. However, it turns out they're the same problem. Dictionaries and Language Packs are added to the /language-tools/ page by AMO Admins (like me), but they aren't added for any particular application.

/seamonkey/language-tools/ is showing the ones we've added that declare compatibility for SeaMonkey. /firefox/language-tools/ shows the ones that declare compatibility with Firefox, which are all, or most of them at least.

So, if there are dictionaries or language packs that are specific to SeaMonkey that you want added to that page, you can file a bug here: https://github.com/mozilla/olympia/issues/new (the new AMO bug repo). For all other cases, it's only a matter of fixing the compatibility issue.

Comment 7

[Rainer Bielefeld]

(In reply to Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] from comment #6)
Thank you for clarification! So I will ask Authors of dictionaries what have been tested successfully for SeaMonkey to add SM as compatible application in install.rdf.
In a month or so I will have completed a list with to kinds of dictionaries what should be added to /seamonkey/language-tools/:
- with SM in install.rdf
- without SM in install.rdf

I will file a bug at https://github.com/mozilla/olympia/issues/new as suggested when the work here has been completed.

Comment 8

[Francis K]

(In reply to Rainer Bielefeld from comment #2)
> @Francis K:
> Can you help a little with testing dictionaries, here or in Bug 1236366?

I just went through and tested installs for everything listed in 1236366. I will test them as suggested one at a time. My question: I should leave the individual test results in new comments then under that bug, correct? Thank you.

Comment 9

[Rainer Bielefeld]

(In reply to Francis K from comment #8)
> individual test results in new comments then under that bug, correct? 
Als long as we 2 are the only testers that will work, I will collect results from time to time.
A better way is to add the Language Pack(s) you test to the user story, so that everybody can see immediately for what LP tests are already done or in progress. 
But User Story requires additional permissions, and as long as only we 2 are testing, comments are fine.

Comment 10

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

IIUC, the spelling subsystem is common to Firefox, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey. However, in order to _install_ in SeaMonkey, an add-on needs in its install.rdf a <targetApplication> section (in the add-ons manager namespace often noted as em: ) for either SeaMonkey or Toolkit (or both). Here are an example of each, as part of a "skeleton" install.rdf:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
   - License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
   - file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. -->

<RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:em="http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#">
  <Description about="urn:mozilla:install-manifest">

    <!-- some lines omitted -->

    <!-- SeaMonkey
         2.0 is Gecko 1.9.1
         2.1 is Gecko 2.0
         2.2 is Gecko 5.0
         2.x is Gecko (x+3).0, where x is greater than 2 -->
    <em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>2.0</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>2.43.*</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>
    </em:targetApplication>

    <!-- Toolkit
         This should in principle be enough, except that AMO
         (unlike the add-ons manager) totally disregards it.
         All versions here are Gecko versions -->
    <em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>[e-mail]</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>1.9.1</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>46.*</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>
    </em:targetApplication>

    <!-- some lines omitted -->
  </Description>
</RDF>

Comment 11

[Rainer Bielefeld]

(In reply to Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec] from comment #10)
Such complete compatibility information might be necessary for particular applications, for dictionaries will be sufficient:

<!-- SeaMonkey (added by Add-on Converter) -->
    <em:targetApplication>
      <em:Description>
        <em:id>{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>2.0</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>2.*</em:maxVersion>
      </em:Description>
    </em:targetApplication>

Comment 12

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Related: "Bug 1240305 - Particular dictionaries listed in normal add-ons manager instead of dictionary section"