Talk:NPAPI

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Netscape 6.5[edit]

I don't recall Netscape 6.5 shipping. All we are aware of is a t-shirt with a prediction that turned out to be false.

I'm not sure what this should have said. But someone should have checked their sources before writing it.

192.100.124.219 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; I found an old Mozilla article which suggests the feature was first added in Netscape 6.1, so I'll change the article accordingly. Could still do with a more concrete source, but it's better than listing a non-existent version. - IMSoP 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M$ bias[edit]

Is this about NPAPI or Micro$oft technologies (IE, OLE, COM, ActiveX)? Because for me it's very M$-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasq777 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 June 2008

Dead link[edit]

Writing scripting plugins with Mozilla is a dead link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.204.14 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome Extension[edit]

[1]

Its say that you can't use NPAPI prior consent of Google, i.e. while it is possible to use NPAPI, Google is "discouraging" (not allowing) to use it.. And since it is virtually impossible to contact Google (Google doesn't have a proper call center / help desk), then it virtually is disallowing to use it. --200.83.2.4 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)--200.83.2.4 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Google discourages the use of this due to security concerns (NPAPI code must be trusted so also must be secure; NPAPI plug-ins have historically been a large source of security issues). 134.134.139.76 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper?[edit]

https://wiki.mozilla.org/NPAPI:Pepper It says pepper is obsolete and PPAPI (pepper plugin api) or pepper2 is the new redesigned api. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.99.150 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper or the PPAPI was originally implemented as a fork of NPAPI but after Mozilla backed out, Google decided to just rewrite it instead of trying to push changes back on Mozilla—so in essence it used to be a derivative work but is no longer. 134.134.139.76 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GWT Debugging[edit]

It's probably worth noting that the GWT live debugging of generated javascript running in a browser, whilst looking at the parent java code in eclipse in a stepping debugger is all hooked together with NPAPI http://www.quora.com/How-does-GWT-live-javascript-debugging-in-Eclipse-work-and-how-could-it-be-applied-to-Clojure?__snids__=43385373 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.43.34 (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer support[edit]

When I have to run a Java app that we use at work I switch from Chrome to IE 11 and I can still use the Java plugin. I believe there is direct NPAPI support in IE 11 and there has been through many earlier IE releases. The ActiveX control that was a shim is not the same thing when you're listing which browsers have NPAPI support. -- DeweyQ (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer 11 uses the ActiveX Java plugin, not the NPAPI plugin. -- Lonaowna (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opera support[edit]

Regarding this edit: Opera is very vague on their NPAPI status. I have verified (but do not have a proper source), that Opera 36 still supports NPAPI plugins. But version 37 seems to drop support (finally). I hope they do a proper announcement when they release version 37, so we can finally clear this up. --Lonaowna (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Opera 37 was released today and I have tested it to confirm that NPAPI support is gone. I can't find a proper source however. -- Lonaowna (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A publicly quotable Opera reference that they stopped NPAPI: http://www.opera.com/docs/history
2015-10-27 - Opera 33 - Discontinued NPAPI support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.116.107 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Flash v23, Linux[edit]

http://www.ghacks.net/2016/09/06/adobe-resurrects-flash-for-linux-from-the-dead/

Time to update the last part of the article. 76.254.17.57 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Lonaowna (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 76.254.17.57 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless reverting[edit]

Someone has undone my edits several times, without any explanation, and with personal attacks in their edit summaries.[2] If they have a reason grounded in the policies and guidelines of the encyclopaedia to do things like making the article contain a mixture of "plug-in" and "plugin" instead of being consistent, then perhaps they would share it. If they don't, then let us hope they will start acting sensibly and stop undoing my change. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several times? That means you reinstated a disputed edit several times. Have you seen our edit warring policy?
And yes, there is a reason grounded in policies: Content removal without explanation is vandalism and may be reverted without explanation. Such reverts are exempt to our three-reverts rule. But even if you had provided a good reason, dispute can still happen and edit warring is not the way to go.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Content removal without explanation is vandalism: no, it isn't. You are clearly only interested in disruption. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The pot calling the kettle black. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa and 128.40.1.2: I would like to make a good-faith effort to restart the conversation, this time, without any personal comments. I start by stating my concern.

My first impression was that this discussion was content removal without explanation, having forgotten that one month ago, this same editor had tried this same edit. But as for changing "content types" into "the content types", I feel it is grammatical mistake because "content types" here do not form a group. As a compromise, I propose "that" be left in the article.

Now, your turn CL. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @FleetCommand and 128.40.1.2:
I believe that the removal of the link to either "plugin" or "browser extension" is wrong because the former is what the sources recurrently refer to and the latter is what the spirit of the subject is. I don't think presence of two links hurts anyone or counts as overlinking. Also, I agree that perhaps I was wrong reverting the change of "plug-in" to "plugin". I will put it back.
I agree with FleetCommand's point on the "content type" matter, but in the spirit of a compromise, I am ready to give up my position on that.
Also, I had forgotten about a month ago too.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have both deleted my posts from your talk pages, made personal attacks against me, and refused to provide any reason for undoing my edits. Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And that's that. I understand after what happened in ANEW, perhaps coming to an accord with us is difficult for you, given how you are now forced to cooperate, while you weren't before ANEW. So, I have a lucrative offer for you: I will withdraw all my objections to your contributions and consent that you reinstate your edits. In exchange, you should forgive, forfeit or rescind your claim that I personally attacked you; we bury the hatchet. This way, I get a friend (you) and you get your contribution and a friend.
How is that?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accused your co-reverter of personal attacks, not you, so your demand is redundant. In any case, you set out to be profoundly unpleasant to me simply because I edited from an IP address. You were motivated, it seems, by a terrible misunderstanding of the policy on vandalism, which I trust you have been disabused of now. You should apologise for your conduct if you sincerely wish to bury the hatchet. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never accused you of vandalism.
Nevertheless, WP:CIVIL is a fundamental policy. If you are not here to edit collegially, you have no right to edit at all.
And that's the last thing I have to say about you and your conduct. From now on, I will comment on the contribution only, not contributor.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

The reasons for the changes I made:

  1. if you say X (more specifically, Y), then you can simply say Y. It is not useful to be both vague and specific. One can simply be as specific as necessary.
  2. e.g is informal writing. such as is identical in this context and is better writing.
  3. declares content types it can handle is also informal in tone. declares the content types that it can handle is better. Contrary to the claims on talk, there is no possible grammatical reason to object to this change. The two versions are grammatically identical; the definite article does not change the meaning or scope of "content types" at all. From reading their contributions I suspect that neither of the two people arguing this are actually native English speakers. I am.

As these changes clearly improved the article, and the reversions were motivated by a serious misunderstanding of policy, I have reinstated them. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"As these changes clearly improved the article". Disagree... as I have said many times before.
1. "X (more specifically, Y)" establishes a chain of hyponymy.
2. "the content types" is grammatically wrong. A definite article must not appear before a plural noun.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Codename Lisa, you are quite mistaken when you say that "A definite article must not appear before a plural noun." Your own text above contradicts this claim and demonstrates why it is absurd, e.g., you wrote "Contrary to the claims", "the changes", and "The two versions", all of which are perfectly correct. Regardless of whether or not it belongs in the article, "the content types" is not grammatically wrong. Carlstak (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlstak: Hi. "Claims" in my text could have easily been a typo. Did you consider that? But it isn't. "Claims", in my context, is a collective noun as opposed to a plural noun. Example:
"Desktop programs start and end at the user's command." This is a general statement about all desktop programs.
"The desktop programs start and end at the user's command." This statement is about a specific group of desktop program that start and end together.
"Content types" in the article isn't a collective noun. If it were, the plug-in could have only handled contents when all the content types that it supports are given to it at once. It isn't. Most of the times, the plug-in takes one content type only.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't a typo; that was obvious. I gave two other examples of your usage besides the one with "claims". You are still quite mistaken that a "definite article must not appear before a plural noun." There is no such grammatical rule, and I am astonished that you think there is. The definite article in English applies to both singular and plural nouns. Look it up. Carlstak (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could start with the WP entry Article (grammar)#Definite article. Carlstak (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlstak: Maybe you yourself should read the section to which you link. It has this enlightening example:

The children know the fastest way home.

The sentence above refers to specific children and a specific way home; it contrasts with the much more general observation that:

Children know the fastest ways home.

The latter sentence refers to children in general and their specific ways home.

You can haggle all you want over what's called collective noun and what's called plural noun. I don't really mind. It all comes down to this: "the content types" refers to a specific set of content types, which we don't mean here. "Content types" refers to content types in general.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, I get the distinction you are making. I'm not here to haggle, since I don't have a dog in it. I thought we might get some clarity on this, and it appears that we did. For that, I thank you. Perhaps our IP friend will read this and get some too. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am glad we reached a mutual agreement. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NPAPI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

⟨⟩

Inclusion of Safari Technology Preview 52's support of NPAPI?[edit]

It seems Apple now has their potential to drop support for Legacy Plug-ins (Except For Adobe Flash Player)

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/03/21/apple-releases-safari-technology-preview-52/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeveloperPudú (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbl[edit]

Should Uzbl still be on the list of browsers that support NPAPI, given Uzbl has been discontinued since 2016? 60.242.50.114 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NPAPI&oldid=1208137437"