Update page_action and browser_action docs to say that default_icon is optional not required.

Update page_action and browser_action docs to say that default_icon is optional not required.

BUG=None
TEST=None

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=71976

[Tessa MacDuff, 2011-01-14 01:54:27]

I recently noticed that these docs were out of sync with the code and comments
in Extension::LoadUserScriptHelper()

[kathyw, 2011-01-18 23:04:47]

Would you really have a browser/page action without an icon? My guess is that
default_icon isn't required, but an icon *is* effectively required (by the UI,
if not the code; otherwise, why bother using browser/page action?).

If that's the case -- that default_icon isn't required but an icon is -- then
I'd undo the text changes but keep the comment changes.

[Tessa MacDuff, 2011-01-19 19:45:01]

I talked to Aaron about this because it seemed strange to me too.  He said
the main reason someone wouldn't use a default_icon is if they want to set
it dynamically (there can be a flicker if you have a default icon and the
reset it programatically).  But it's also valid to not have any icon and it
works sort of like an invisible/transparent icon.  (He said developers were
actually using transparent icons which was some of the motivation for making
the property optional.)


On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 15:04, <kathyw@chromium.org> wrote:

> Would you really have a browser/page action without an icon? My guess is
> that
> default_icon isn't required, but an icon *is* effectively required (by the
> UI,
> if not the code; otherwise, why bother using browser/page action?).
>
> If that's the case -- that default_icon isn't required but an icon is --
> then
> I'd undo the text changes but keep the comment changes.
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6340001/
>

[kathyw, 2011-01-19 21:45:16]

Weird... but interesting.

LGTM.

-k-

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Tessa MacDuff <tessamac@chromium.org> wrote:
> I talked to Aaron about this because it seemed strange to me too.  He said
> the main reason someone wouldn't use a default_icon is if they want to set
> it dynamically (there can be a flicker if you have a default icon and the
> reset it programatically).  But it's also valid to not have any icon and it
> works sort of like an invisible/transparent icon.  (He said developers were
> actually using transparent icons which was some of the motivation for making
> the property optional.)
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 15:04, <kathyw@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> Would you really have a browser/page action without an icon? My guess is
>> that
>> default_icon isn't required, but an icon *is* effectively required (by the
>> UI,
>> if not the code; otherwise, why bother using browser/page action?).
>>
>> If that's the case -- that default_icon isn't required but an icon is --
>> then
>> I'd undo the text changes but keep the comment changes.
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/6340001/
>
>