262487 - Pithy 0.2 - Reclaiming the Page-Info key.

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Public Pages, defect)

Description

[Rowne-Wuff Mastaile]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040927 Incredi-shrew-mole/1.0 X (Firefox/1.0PR [nightlies] polymorph)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040927 Incredi-shrew-mole/1.0 X (Firefox/1.0PR [nightlies] polymorph)

This is my first time filing a request for an extension of my own to be listed
at UMO, so forgive me if I've done this incorrectly.

That said...

"Pithy (v0.2 Fx0.9-1.0)

This extension restores the Page-Info hotkey that went missing in recent Firefox
builds, it does this by disabling the secondary bookmark key and using that for
Page-Info instead.  This hotkey is called [Accel]+[I], which is [Ctrl]+[I] on a
PC keyboard or [Command]+[I] on a Macintosh."

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Comment 1

[Jed B]

I can't get to the file, can you either host it somewhere else or attache it?
Thanks

Comment 2

[Rowne-Wuff Mastaile]

(In reply to comment #1)
> I can't get to the file, can you either host it somewhere else or attache it?
> Thanks

A thousand pardons, it appears as though my ISP went down sometime last night, I
see a good number of reconnection attempts in my logs and I've been offline for
a while.  Thusly, my site should now be accessible again but I'll create an
attachment anyway, sorry.

Comment 3

[Rowne-Wuff Mastaile]

Attachment: Pithy 0.2

Comment 4

[Jed B]

No problem.
Howevere you install.rdf seems to be malformed.
See: http://jedbrown.net/mozilla/EM/
for more info.

Marking invalid, please reopen when fixed.

Comment 5

[Rowne-Wuff Mastaile]

(In reply to comment #4)
> No problem.
> Howevere you install.rdf seems to be malformed.
> See: http://jedbrown.net/mozilla/EM/
> for more info.
> 
> Marking invalid, please reopen when fixed.

Will do!  I looked over the site though and I can only see two potential issues.

1) The pro-GUID stance.

If I need a true-GUID I'll include one.

2) <maxVersion>1.0</maxVersion>

Should it be a maximum of 0.10.1?

That's all I can think of.  Everything else matches the spec personally.  I
thought 1.0 wasn't unreasonable though and the use of Named-IDs over GUIDs was
just personal choice, I didn't realize it would classify the install.rdf as
malformed.

If it's not either of these, could you be more specific?

Comment 6

[Wolf [:wolf]]

A real guid is needed, as firefox uses it internally for a variety of things.
including extension update and chrome. :-)

MaxVersion should be 0.10 not 0.10.1 (the latter is a application version, the
extension compatibility version for 0.10.1 is still 0.10 :-) ) 

-- Wolf

Comment 7

[Rowne-Wuff Mastaile]

Attachment: Pithy 0.2 install.rdf altered to meet U.M.O spec.

Comment 8

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

AMO BUGSPAM FOR COMPONENT MOVE AND DELETE (FILTER ME)