I tried Vimium and found it lacking, which actually led me to Vimperator. If I remember correctly, though, Vimium allows you to set your own bindings so perhaps the emacs bindings are already out there somewhere.

Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David A. Faler
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 8:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Safari extensions

Joel,
  You could try vimium [1] to get vi keybindings for Chrome.  I haven't used it (I'm waiting for emacs bindings), but it might help make it usable for you.




[1] http://github.com/philc/vimium


Thank you,

David Faler
IT Quality Control and Testing
The Library Corporation


----- "Joel Marchesoni" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Honestly I try to switch to Chrome every month or so, but it just
> doesn't do what Firefox does for me. I've actually been using a
> Firefox mod called Pale Moon [1] that takes out some of the not so
> useful features for work (parental controls, etc) and optimizes for
> current processors. It's not a huge speed increase, but it is
> definitely noticeable.
> 
> Oh, and Chrome doesn't have Vimperator [2] :)
> 
> Joel
> 
> [1] http://www.palemoon.org/
> [2] http://vimperator.org/
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Richard, Joel M
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:24 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Safari extensions
> 
> If I remember correctly, the latest versions of Firefox had problems,
> but I don't know if it's related to performance necessarily. More like
> bloat. http://bit.ly/c1c3m1
> 
> Either way, I definitely find Firefox too slow to use after the switch
> to Chrome, which took all of 5 minutes to completely convert me. If
> Chrome were a drug, I'd be strung out and living on the streets. But
> what's to say it won't head the same way as Firefox in the future
> (bloat-wise.)
> 
> It's also a memory hog, especially when you load up Firebug. Chrome's
> debugging tools are like a dream come true.  That said, I'm not that
> kind of developer, so I won't be able to help port any extensions to
> Chrome or Safari. Testing, yes, porting, no. :)
> 
> 
> --Joel
> 
> Joel Richard
> IT Specialist, Web Services Division
> Smithsonian Institution Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/
> (202) 633-1706 | (202) 786-2861 (f) | [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Raymond Yee <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:15:59 -0400
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Safari extensions
> 
> Has anyone given thought to how hard it would be to port Firefox
> extensions such as LibX and  Zotero to Chrome or Safari?  (Am I the
> only
> one finding Firefox to be very slow compared to Chrome?)
> 
> -Raymond
> 
> On 8/5/10 1:10 PM, Godmar Back wrote:
> > No, nothing beyond a quick read-through.
> >
> > The architecture is similar to Google Chrome's - which is perhaps
> not
> > surprising given that both Safari and Chrome are based on WebKit -
> > which for us at LibX means we should be able to leverage the
> redesign
> > we did for LibX 2.0.
> >
> > A notable characteristic of this architecture is that content
> scripts
> > that interact with a page are in a separate OS process from the
> "main"
> > extensions' code, thus they have to communicate with the main
> > extension via message passing rather than by exploiting direct
> method
> > calls as in Firefox.
> >
> >   - Godmar
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Eric Hellman<[log in to unmask]> 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Has anyone played with the new Safari extensions capability? I'm
> looking at you, Godmar.
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric Hellman
> >> President, Gluejar, Inc.
> >> 41 Watchung Plaza, #132
> >> Montclair, NJ 07042
> >> USA
> >>
> >> [log in to unmask]
> >> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
> >> @gluejar
> >>
> >>
> 
> 
> --


--