Web lists-archives.com

Re: New browser from the devs of Palemoon




My bloviated meandering follows what Balaco graced us with on 11/22/2017 12:32 PM:
Em 22-11-2017 18:21, Sailfish escreveu:
My bloviated meandering follows what Balaco graced us with on 11/22/2017
11:52 AM:
Em 22-11-2017 17:38, Sailfish escreveu:
My bloviated meandering follows what Balaco graced us with on 11/22/2017
11:19 AM:
Em 22-11-2017 17:05, Balaco escreveu:

<snip/>

I am puzzled to find a reason why omni.ja is 13MiB and this XPI file
is only 420KiB. Should I bet that both contain the same number of
strings?

Yep, throw those dtd's into the "arduous" mix, too :-)

The chrome, jssubloader and modules are the largest consumers and they
contain the actual browser code files.

Mmmm... (:

You shouldn't need to modify the code modules by replacing DTD strings
and even adding new DTD strings for Basilisk-specific additions, I would
think?


No, we should not need to modify any code. From a programmer point of view and probable organization of binary files for the Firefox program, both should be separated, and should exist separated. Looks promissing! My "mmm" with a smile was something to tell "I am thinking and liking of what you found".

Good luck on your quest. I'd like to hear more on how it works out.

As an aside, you should probably consider making some small language changes and then test the changed. omni.ja before deciding to continue with the full effort, just to ensure it will work without having to spend a lot of work on your part.

Also, if the Basilisk us-EN files are similar structured as the Fx ones, you might even be able to save a lot of time by running a text diff program on the Basilisk and Fx ones to pin-point which parts can be moved over and which might need to be added?

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general