Talk:NPAPI

Lead section

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)

"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)

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)

@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)

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)

You could start with the WP entry Article (grammar)#Definite article. Carlstak (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Well, I am glad we reached a mutual agreement. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170307050159/https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Problems-with-add-ons-plugins-or/Why-do-Java-Silverlight-Adobe-Acrobat-and-other-plugins-no/ta-p/31069 to https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Problems-with-add-ons-plugins-or/Why-do-Java-Silverlight-Adobe-Acrobat-and-other-plugins-no/ta-p/31069
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906115517/https://dev.opera.com/extensions/tut_npapi.html to https://dev.opera.com/extensions/tut_npapi.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

⟨⟩

Inclusion of Safari Technology Preview 52's support of NPAPI?

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)

Uzbl

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)

Vandalism magnet

For some reason, this page seems to be getting a lot of small, mostly undetected vandal-like edits over the past while. I've reverted a few I found, but there might be more. In the cases I found, the IP editors had either one other or no other contributions, and the other contributions were also reverted. I'll try and keep an eye on the article here, but this is just a heads-up to other editors to keep an eye out for nonconstructive edits. MrAureliusR_{Yell at me!} 04:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)