Xulrunner: Difference between revisions
From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
xulrunner 1.8/1.9 are already compatible with chrome.manifest file (as opposed to firefox 1.0), so there is no need to have contents.rdf (which seems to be not interpreted) | xulrunner 1.8/1.9 are already compatible with chrome.manifest file (as opposed to firefox 1.0), so there is no need to have contents.rdf (which seems to be not interpreted) | ||
==Customizing icons== | ==Customizing icons== | ||
create icons\default directory under chrome (same place you have your contents directory) and put the following 3 files in it: | create icons\default directory under chrome (same place you have your contents directory) and put the following 3 files in it: | ||
packagename.ico - this is what mozilla actually uses | packagename.ico - this is what mozilla actually uses | ||
Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
packagename.xpm - regular, what's the need when there is .ico file? | packagename.xpm - regular, what's the need when there is .ico file? | ||
packagename16.xpm - smaller, 16bit? | packagename16.xpm - smaller, 16bit? | ||
== Customizing window look == |
Revision as of 00:39, 10 December 2005
Note: this page needs to be properly formatted once there is enough content to put it all together.
rdf/manifest problem
xulrunner 1.8/1.9 are already compatible with chrome.manifest file (as opposed to firefox 1.0), so there is no need to have contents.rdf (which seems to be not interpreted)
Customizing icons
create icons\default directory under chrome (same place you have your contents directory) and put the following 3 files in it: packagename.ico - this is what mozilla actually uses the following two seem to be optional as they are not invoked packagename.xpm - regular, what's the need when there is .ico file? packagename16.xpm - smaller, 16bit?