> For example, I supposed that it will be possible for your extension to rely
on some calls to some functions in the script dealing with the logic
between the moving parts (for example 'showVerificationResult'). I thought
that this would help us decouple what's shipped in the extension from the
content and interactions on the page.
Yeah, this seems good. Extensions can't call functions directly so will
have to do message passing (
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/postMessage ). I
can build message passing layer so you can assume that extension can call
the functions. Just let me know what functions extension will be calling.
Here are the functions I think will be required:
- verifyingFil()
- fileVerificationComplete()
You'll also need some kind of indication that extension is installed or
not, right? We can set a global variable EXTENSION_INSTALLED and you can
simply check if it's true.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:58 AM, sajolida <sajolida@???> wrote:
> Hi Uzair,
>
> This time I'm putting in copy tails-dev@??? which is our
> development mailing, instead of tails-ux@, because we're entering the
> realm of code and implementation. anonym is subscribed to this list so
> there's no need to put him in explicit copy anymore.
>
> So I'm done with a first HTML prototype of the new download page. You
> can see it here:
>
> https://tails.boum.org/install/download_2/
>
> The code is in our main Git repository:
>
> https://git-tails.immerda.ch/tails/
>
> And the most relevant files are:
>
> HTML:
>
> https://git-tails.immerda.ch/tails/tree/wiki/src/install/
> inc/steps/download_2.inline.html
>
> CSS:
>
> https://git-tails.immerda.ch/tails/tree/wiki/src/install/
> inc/stylesheets/dave_2.css
>
> JavaScript:
>
> https://git-tails.immerda.ch/tails/tree/wiki/src/install/inc/js/dave_2.js
>
> In the current version of the verification extension, the logic behind
> the moving parts on the page is mostly taken care of by CSS selectors
> (for example, #download[data-state="pause"]) and the extension itself.
> But here I started writing some JavaScript to handle the interactions
> that couldn't take place in the extension (because it might not be
> installed already) and in the end I thought that maybe the whole logic
> behind the moving parts could be handled this way (and this makes the
> CSS *much* easier to understand). But I don't know if doing things this
> way will work for you...
>
> I'm really not used to writing JavaScript like this or organizing code
> between a page, a script, and an extension so I'd highly appreciate
> comments and guidance on whether I went in the right directions or
> should do things differently.
>
> For example, I supposed that it will be possible for your extension to
> rely on some calls to some functions in the script dealing with the
> logic between the moving parts (for example 'showVerificationResult').
> I thought that this would help us decouple what's shipped in the
> extension from the content and interactions on the page.
>
> In my JS I also simulated the work of the extension. You'll see that
> with the XXX comments in dave_2.js.
>
> Also, the prototype is far from being complete but I thought that it was
> ready enough for you to start commenting on it and doing your coding
> work. For example, I'm still missing:
>
> - To integrate the browser detection code (from dave.js).
> - To make all the graphical elements look better. So far I focused on
> the HTML structure and the interactions but not the look.
>
> If you want to build a local version of the website as part of your work
> and need guidance on how to do that, I can help you out.
>
> Tell me if you need anything!
>
