1. John Nye: Barnaby Walters last time I used mozilla it was poor experience (2011), but validation of extensions was a manual process by someone.

    .@john_nye all the stores I’ve submitted extensions to do manual reviews. Mozilla:

    • gives two review options (fast and slow),
    • runs loads of automated tests in a web interface to suggest things to fix,
    • gives you the choice of which review to use, and creates a public URL from which the extension can be installed while the review’s in process

    Safari and Opera have fairly basic, boring forms for uploading stuff, and are extremely picky and unclear about exact image sizes for screenshots and icons. There’s also no “review in progress” page, but otherwise acceptable.

    Obviously I’ve not been able to actually submit an extension to the Chrome store, but I’d hope that it’s a damned good experience for $5. If they are doing automatic reviews, then the price becomes even more counter-intuitve. If they’ve automated it, surely it’s cheaper and quicker for them?

  2. Charles Stanhope: Barnaby Walters Is Facebook's behavior different from Twitter's t.co in this regard? (I don't use Facebook, so genuinely curious.)

    @cstanhope Twitter do indeed shorten all links, they’re just a little bit more honest about it. But I’m certainly going to make the extension unshorten them all too (there’s enough info in the HTML do to that without extra HTTP requests).

  3. In reply to a post on github.com

    @sandeepshetty @pfefferle cweiske Something new to consider: Jeremy Keith added a webmention sending form to his journal entries to help people who’s websites don’t support webmention already. Being able to test and use webmention through a human visible, interactable form is a huge benefit of using HTTP form encoded data.

    We can make this an even stronger case by encouraging success and error responses to be full HTML documents with helpful copy.

    See also