174
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 57:
Line 57: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Features/Content support (view source)
Revision as of 05:28, 4 September 2010
, 05:28, 4 September 2010→Browse can handle content bundles directly: new section
#* Offering hints as to the number of updates available for content already stored locally
#* Offering hints as to the number of updates available for content already stored locally
#*: <small>(as the current Activity Update interface offers. the default hint should probably be less bold; rather than a page listing the updates in detail and asking you to click "go!")</small>
#*: <small>(as the current Activity Update interface offers. the default hint should probably be less bold; rather than a page listing the updates in detail and asking you to click "go!")</small>
== Browse can handle content bundles directly ==
''The widely-deployed .xol content bundles only have minimal support (they can only be launched from the journal).''
: Not true, you can view .xol (or any ZIP file) contents in Browse ''without installing or unpacking'' using the jar: protocol ({{bug|1258}}).
Copy and paste the following into your browse bar , including the "jar:" on the front.
jar:http://wiki.laptop.org/images/3/3e/Biology-9.jar!/Biology/index.en.html
This has some interesting implications.
* Sugar code doesn't have to keep a .xol and a Library directory in sync, installing and uninstalling the lattr
* The file system ensures uniqueness of content bundles
* Instead of making web pages telling readers how great some content is, they can view it for themselves before they download.
=== Limitations ===
* Some collections have an index.html that does a meta http-equiv refresh to a path in file:///home/olpc/Library , this won't work (and I think breaks anyway in other Sugar environments)
* Some collections (Biology, NatureImages, TranslationDictionary) reference a /usr/share/library-common/css/master.css). This won't work if you browse them remotely.
* I don't know what the performance implications are. I know Firefox 3.6 has additional performance boosts as Mozilla moved more files into a single runtime .jar file.