HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail 1.0.2.3

Don't get too excited. The Multiple HTML Reply Signatures Extension 1.0.2.3 update doesn't include too many new features. I got rid of the red update link that appears in the toolbar. I don't think it was working correctly. In addition, it took up valuable browser real estate. Bad idea.

I did try to see what would happen in Firefox 3. Sadly, the Firefox Extension doesn't work in Mozilla's newest and fastest browser. The problem isn't the editor or even the signature injection. It's the module that reads data from the XML file. This was a hack anyway. I could probably get by with using the Firefox RDF API or perhaps store the signatures using the preferences system.

The good news is, converting to Firefox 3 wouldn't be hard. The bad news is that I don't have time to do it. We just need to fix the mechanism that reads signatures from the XML data file! That's it! Everything else appeared to work when I tested it!

Anyone know any JavaScript who is bored? HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail is licensed under the GPL! You can crack open the XPI and try to fix this yourself! I'll even tell you what files to modify if you email me!

I did start working on a version for Gmail 2. Interestingly enough, there aren't many solutions out there for Gmail 2, yet there was tons of competition for Gmail 1. I have a prototype that Susan Hemmersmeier has happily tested for me. It's very buggy though. Too buggy to put up on the blog, and too buggy for her to use.

Susan asked me when this will be finished. I hate to keep promising that "I'll eventually get to it.". You see, thanks to this blog, I landed some contract work! It's a lot of fun, but it takes up a lot of time. As a result, it would appear that HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail may be a (sniff...) dying project...

Do you have the skills to resurrect it from it's ashes? Let me know! I can definitely provide the moral support and answer technical questions, I just can't devote programming time to it at the moment.


James

Update for HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail

10/09/07 UPDATE: Due to a change made to the Gmail URL structure, the HTML Multiple Reply Signatures Extension suddenly stopped working. I've updated the URL to reflect the newest, working version.

There have been some problems with the Firefox Extension that can make inserting HTML signatures in Gmail somewhat of a hassle. However, in spite of these issues, people have been downloading and using it. To my surprise and pleasure, I've received quite a bit of positive feedback. For those of you who have given me feedback, thank you! In order to address some of the issues that you've had and to accommodate some requests I've received, I've updated the extension, which can be downloaded by clicking on the following link:

Multiple HTML Reply Signatures Extension 1.0.2

Multiple HTML Reply Signatures Extension 1.0.2.1

Multiple HTML Reply Signatures Extension 1.0.2.2


I've added multi-line functionality to the editor, so you won't have to type the HTML all on one line. In addition, this should make it much easier to paste HTML directly into the editor. This was causing the script to not function when HTML was pasted, since HTML is typically not written all on one line.



I also added an update notification to the new version. Firefox Extensions support update notifications through RDF, but since my hosting provider doesn't respond to RDF requests with "text/rdf" like an Apache server would, I was forced to create a hack that uses a regular expression to check the version number against my server. The cool thing about my custom version of update notifications is that the HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail extension will simply insert a "Click here to update" button in the tool bar.



It's not the most elegant way to notify users of an update, but I absolutely hate popup windows. This tool bar button is very unobtrusive. An image or a logo would be cool, but that's not my specialty so for now, it's plain text.

I started looking into the issue of why quotes won't work in the extension. This is turning out to be a lot more complicated and will take a lot more time to resolve. The problem is that the quotes have been escaped so many times that I think the strings aren't being parsed correctly. For now, you must enter your attributes without quotes like I've done below:

<a href=http://blog.opensourceopportunities.com style=color:orange>Blog</a>

Oh, I recently discovered that ampersand codes weren't supported. That has also been fixed. You can now use   in your HTML, if needed.

I'll continue to fix bugs in this extension. The quotes are a big one, but not easily fixed. As always, if you have any problems, questions, concerns, or suggestions, please email me and I'll respond as quickly as I can.

HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail Firefox Extension

After spending the last three weekends working on the HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail Firefox Extension 1.0.1, I finally have a working prototype.

The Firefox Extension has all of the features and functionality of the HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail Greasemonkey script, except the extension doesn't require Greasemonkey. In addition, the extension provides a user interface for easy editing of signatures.

With Greasemonkey, users are required to edit the script manually in order to edit signatures. With the extension, this is no longer necessary.

For convenience, there is a real-time preview window so any HTML entered is immediately displayed for easy editing.

In fact, I'm thinking that the preview editor has some potential to be used in a number of applications, such as an HTML tutorial, HTML-area textbox for user comments, possibly a content-management system, and some other uses.

Since the user interface consists of XUL, these applications would all have a client-side feel to them, yet the potential exists to either serve them remotely or package them as Firefox Extensions.

The Firefox Extension

You should be able to install the extension in Firefox simply by clicking on the HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail 1.0.1 Firefox Extension link. If you are prompted to install, wonderful! Simply choose the "Install" option and restart Firefox. However, I noticed that -- when I tried to install by clicking on the link -- I was instead prompted to save the XPI file to disk.

If you experience this, follow these steps to save the XPI to disk and install it locally.

• To install the XPI locally, open the Extensions/Add ons window from the "Tools" menu.
• Next, drag and drop the XPI file from your desktop to the extensions window.
• When prompted to install, click "Install".


• Restart Firefox by closing all Firefox windows.

Using the HTML Multiple Reply Signatures for Gmail Firefox Extension

Creating a signature

• In Firefox, click "Tools" -> "Gmail Multiple Reply Signatures".





• Near the top of the window are two radio buttons. Use these to toggle between editing the signatures for initial compose emails or reply emails





• In the "Initial Composes" section, select from four signatures to configure.





• Enter HTML in the "Enter HTML Signature here" section. For attributes, do not use any quotes. Below is an example of a signature hyperlink where attributes are used, but without quotes:


<div>--</div><a href=http://blog.opensourceopportunities.com style=font-family:tahoma;color:blue;>James Mortensen</a><div></div>




• In the "Preview" section, you will see real-time HTML output based on your input in the "Enter HTML Signature here" section. You may fine-tune your signature until it appears the way you want.





• Once configured, click "Save".

Inserting the HTML Signature in Gmail

Inserting the signature is automatic. When you click "compose" or "reply", the first signature in the list will automatically appear in the editor. To change signatures, use the dropdown list at the bottom of the Gmail left navigation section. The signature will be changed automatically as soon as your selection is made.

View the demo here.

Known bugs

There are some bugs that I have come across so far, and I am sure that there will be more. If you discover a bug that is not in this list, please email me or post a comment to this post.

Sometimes it is best to release software instead of trying to correct every single bug. None of these are showstoppers, but here they are:

• Quotes cannot be used around attributes

Simply leave out the quotes as they are not required.



• Large sections of HTML may be corrupted when saving.

When you enter large sections of HTML and save, the next time you open the sgnature content editor, you will be reverted back to defaults. You can find your signatures in an xml file called htmlmultiplereplysignaturesforgmail.xml in your Mozilla Firefox profile directory. Save this information somewhere else, or copy and paste the non-corrupted signatures back into the editor. I plan to create some means of recovery for these types of errors.



• The signature names can't be renamed

This functionality has not been completely implemented yet.



• When pressing "Compose" in Gmail more than once, multiple drop-down lists appear

Just delete any unwanted signatures from the Gmail editor.



• After entering email content, selecting a different signature will cause part or all of my email to be deleted.

Be careful not to type below the "--" characters. There are invisible markers around he signature that mark the dynamic section. (Actually, the signature is placed inside a span element. If you type below the "--", you are typing inside the span element).


• Fixed in 1.0.1 on 6/9/07 - After entering a signature on multiple lines in the editor, the signatures would not appear in the Gmail compose or reply editors.

I enabled the multiline attribute of the textbox, which the script did not know how to handle. The temporary fix was to disable multiline support until I have time to fix the problem and test it thoroughly. Be aware that if you want line breaks in the signature, simply use a <br> or <div></div>

Comments

This is the first project I've done on my own that is outside the context of work or school. Please don't hesitate to give me advice about how to better track bugs, write better documentation, or make improvements to the application.

Also, if you have any trouble or need help, please contact me. I hope you find this Firefox extension useful!

Dynamic Remote XUL, Struts, and Java Server Pages

I've recently had the opportunity to use Mozilla's XML-based XUL user interface language for the frontend of an Apache Struts application. The idea consists of using Firefox tabs or XUL tabs to manage multiple windows in the application.

Is it a Browser or a Client-Side Application?

Essentially, the application will run in a Firefox browser; however, it will look like a client-side application. That is the beauty of XUL. Since the Firefox user interface was developed using XUL, applications written in XUL can "take over" the Firefox interface and integrate with it either partially or fully. Thus, the line between what components are Firefox and what components belong to the application is very thin.

The backend will be developed in Java and use Struts to help utilize a Model, View, Controller architectural pattern. We are breaking new ground here. Most Struts applications I've seen generate dynamic HTML, not XUL. The application will be served remotely, appear to be a client-side application, and use Struts Action classes as the controller.

Since Struts actions are called via url's, it's possible to have different parts of our application run in different Firefox tabs! Mozilla has an API that allows developers to interact with the browser. Using JavaScript, a developer can open a url in a new window, a new tab, or the current window. From a development perspective, this means we can force our different modules to run in different tabs. The application would essentially run not in one Firefox tab, but in multiple tabs.

XUL Tabbrowser

There's not a lot of information out there on Struts and XUL, but it appears to be a very scalable model in that the MVC framework means that even existing Struts applications could be retrofitted with XUL simply by modifying the view.

However, the lack of Mozilla documentation does present a challenge. I found information on the tabbrowser XUL element, but none of the information appeared to be correct. In addition, the Mozilla Developer Center API for tabbrowser was missing examples. After researching and testing a solution, I contributed the following example:




<vbox>
  <tabbox id="tabBrowser">
    <tabs>
    <tab label="Tab1"/>
    <tab label="Tab2"/>
    <tab label="Tab3"/>
   </tabs>
  <tabpanels width="500" height="500">
    <browser id="browserTab1" src="http://www.mozilla.org"/>
    <browser id="browserTab2"/>
    <browser id="browserTab3"/>
   </tabpanels>
  </tabbox>
  <hbox>
   <button id="btnLoadBrowserContent"
  label="Load URL"  oncommand="loadURL(document.getElementById('tab2'),'http://developer.mozilla.org')"/>
 </hbox>
</vbox>


The example above will display three tabs in a Firefox window. Each tab contains a browser object. Using XML DOM methods, the src attribute can be dynamically modified based on user or system events:

function loadURL(browserElem,pUrl) {
//modify the src attribute of the browser element
browserElem.setAttribute("src",pUrl);
}

The JavaScript code above will modify the src attribute of the second browser object and cause a page to be loaded in that tab. By replacing the src attribute with different Struts action urls, this application will be extremely dynamic and scalable.

Remote Applications and Operating Systems

There has been quite a bit of discussion centered around the use of the Mozilla-based XUL technology in order to create a rich user interface on top of a thin client. In the past two weeks, I've learned quite a bit more about the power of XUL, and I've gained more perspective as to where application development is heading in regards to Web applications, rich user interfaces, and operating systems.


Mozilla Amazon Browser

When I think of XUL, I think "Firefox Extension". I visualize browser overlays and add-in software that functions in conjunction with Mozilla Firefox. But yesterday, a co-worker introduced me to the Mozilla Amazon Browser, which renders rich web content through a Mozilla interface. This shattered my previous notions of XUL.



The Mozilla Amazon Browser looks and feels exactly like a client-side application, yet the entire application, including the user interface, is run from a remote server! In addition, the application can also be installed locally as a Firefox Extension with the same look and feel as the remote version! The only limitation is that Mozilla Firefox must be used in order to use the application; it won't run using other browsers, such as Internet Explorer.

This completely changed my view of what XUL is capable of! In 2004, Joel Spolsky of Joel on Software wrote an article about How Microsoft Lost the API War because of emerging Web development technologies. He described the user interface of Web-based applications as "a huge step backwards in daily usability". Because of this inability of Web tools to render a rich user interface to Web users, client-side applications will always have their place on the desktop. People like Mr. Spolsky and myself would much prefer to use a client-side interface that allows us to make full use of the keyboard to speedily control an application rather than stumble around the screen with a mouse pointer, reducing productivity and wasting time.

Technologies, such as XUL, that allow a Web application to look and feel like a rich client-side application and still allow users to access that content from anywhere have set the stage to replace client-side applications completely because they eliminate the user interface problem.


Client email vs. Web-based email

Many businesses are using Web-based email in place of using a mail client simply because email providers, such as Gmail, only provide POP access. The POP protocol only allows a user to download his or her email to one computer, so if employees within an organization use multiple computers this creates quite a challenge for using mail clients. Thus, as an employee working at such an organization, one loses much of the functionality that only the client can provide.

On the flipside, organizations whose employees use only one computer and do not rely on Web-based email, reap great benefits from the ability to perform certain actions, such as embedding signature images in emails. This is something that Mozilla Thunderbird can do in Gmail with POP access but something that the Gmail thin client cannot do without the help of a third-party Firefox Extension, such as Greasemonkey combined with the HTML Signatures for Gmail script.

What I see here in terms of client-side applications vs Web-based applications is a hierarchy of priorities which determine whether or not a user will use the client interface or the Web interface. If the user requires access from multiple locations then he or she must sacrifice user interface for mobility. However, if mobility is not necessary, then the user will be more likely to use a client-side application, especially if speed and the use of advanced features is required.

With XUL, developers now have the necessary tools to offer customers both mobility and a strong user interface. We can see this already just by testing Firefox Extensions, like Greasemonkey, to improve the features of Gmail.


Google Docs and Spreadsheets

Google Docs and Spreadsheets is yet another example of a Web application that offers users tremendous benefits in regards to mobility, yet still needs some work in terms of user interface. I am a big fan of this mobile Office suite because I can record information regardless of where I am or what operating system I am using. I even use the spreadsheet for complex tasks that would be much easier using Microsoft Excel or Open Office Calc, but mobility is ranked as a higher priority than user-interface, so I make do with Google Docs and Spreadsheets as-is.

However, in the last month I've been doing some experimenting of my own. I've been trying repeatedly, yet unsucessfully, to use XUL to interact with the File menu in Google Docs. As I previously stated, shortcut keys are important to me. When I press "Alt-F", I expect to see a drop-down appear with a list of File controls, such as "Save" or "Save As"; instead, My Firefox File menu expands. Reluctantly, I move my hand away from the keyboard to reach for the mouse, stumble around the screen while I point at Google's 'File' button, and perform a left-click.

One of the features of XUL is the ability to use the 'accesskey' attribute to allow users to use a shortcut key in place of a mouse click. My hope was that I could use this to call Google's ActionMenuLoader(fileMenuButton,'more') functionality from a local Firefox Extension.

Although my methods have not proved successful, I believe the secret to successfully implementing a richer Google Docs and Spreasheets interface can be found by studying the two Firefox Extensions mentioned earlier: Greasemonkey and the Mozilla Amazon Browser.

With Greasemonkey, local JavaScript code within a user's local Mozilla profile directory can manipulate browser content. Therefore, I wonder if it would be possible to add an HTML 'accesskey' attribute to Google's File button, allowing Google Docs and Spreadsheets to expand the File menu by using an "Alt-F". The advantage of this approach for someone like Google is that their application can still be accessed normally using a non-Mozilla browser yet still add this additional functionality to a Firefox user without making changes to existing code.

However, the Mozilla Amazon Browser has taken the user interface a step further by developing a user interface that interacts with remote content. It basically is remote content, depending on whether or not the user installs the Extension or accesses it remotely. I wonder if a similar interface could be developed for Google Docs and Spreadsheets to allow users the full functionality of a word processor and spreadsheet, minimizing the use of the mouse, yet still giving priority to those who require mobility.


Remote Operating Systems

Free Geek in Portland uses a technology called Lessdisks, which basically allows a computer terminal workstation to run an operating system from the server! In other words, the machine is essentially nothing more than a motherboard, a processor with RAM and other basic components, and a monitor. The machines they use do not have any disks. None whatsoever. They don't have a floppy drive, they don't have a hard drive, and they don't have CD-ROM drives.

If you logon to one of these Ubuntu Dapper 6.06 machines, it looks and feels as if you are running Ubuntu locally. I asked the head of Tech Support at Free Geek, Michael Westwind, if it were possible to run Lessdisks over the Internet. Although he seemed to feel that the system would be sluggish due to graphical delays as a result of slow communication, I totally see where we are heading. High-speed Internet may be too slow right now, but what about in the next few years? I can already successfully logon to my Windows machine through the Internet using Remote Desktop, and I experience very minimal graphical delays while productively working in this manner.



In fact, I'm writing this blog article using the CapOS Browser Operating System. This application allows the user to drag and drop windows within the browser! The browser window looks just like a desktop background, and I have windows that I can minimize, maximize, and close. I haven't had a chance to fully explore its feature-set yet, but this does hint that in the future all applications could be hosted in one location, be accessed anywhere, and have a rich client interface, possibly without the need for a local hard drive or operating system!

I think Microsoft is in trouble.

James Mortensen