[Project_owners] Are contents.rdf files needed in Firefox extensions?

Patrick Brunschwig patrick.brunschwig at gmx.net
Wed Nov 10 22:28:27 EST 2004

Brian King schrieb:
> One of the staples of traditional packages (in Mozilla) is that
> contents.rdf manifest files are needed to register a particular portion
> of your package as content | skin | locale, and enable chrome:// URLs to
> those locations.
> I'm wondering if contents.rdf files are redundant in Firefox given that:
> a) install.rdf contains the front end data such as extension name,
> author, version, etc.
> b) install.rdf lists the package, skin and locale location, e.g.
>     <em:file>
>       <Description about="urn:mozilla:extension:file:mypackage.jar">
>         <em:package>content/</em:package>
>         <em:skin>skin/classic/</em:skin>
>         <em:locale>locale/en-US/</em:locale>
>       </Description>
>     </em:file>
> I could do a simple test to check, but I'm asking here out of laziness
> and for others to be informed.
> Another way to ask would be -- does anyone have a working extension
> *without* packaging any contents.rdf files?

I would turn it this way: there are some parts in contents.rdf that may
be redundant given the new extensions, but other parts are still needed.
Just think of how you specify overlays: you can't do that in
install.rdf. From this, I conclude that contents.rdf is certainly not
obsolete. But is it mandatory? -- I don't know.


More information about the Project_owners mailing list