Prepared adblockplus for Safari

chrome/locale/en-US/firstRun.properties

Index: chrome/locale/en-US/firstRun.properties
===================================================================
--- a/chrome/locale/en-US/firstRun.properties
+++ b/chrome/locale/en-US/firstRun.properties
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 firstRun_title=Adblock Plus has been installed
 firstRun_dataCorruptionWarning=Does this page keep showing up? <a>Click here!</a>
 firstRun_acceptableAdsExplanation=<strong>Adblock Plus will always block annoying ads.</strong> Still, we want to encourage websites using plain and unobtrusive advertising. That's why we have established <a>strict guidelines</a> to identify acceptable ads, and allow these out of the box. You can always <a>disable</a> this if you want to block all ads.
+firstRun_legacySafariWarning=You are using an old version of Safari which is not supported by Adblock Plus. So it might not work correctly or impair the user experience on some websites. We strongly recommend to either update to Safari 6 or higher (available since Mac OS X 10.8, Mountain Lion), or to use the latest version of Firefox, Google Chrome or Opera.

[Wladimir Palant, 2013/09/10 06:53:46]

I agree with Felix, it should be "It might not work", please drop "So" in that
sentence. Also, I suggest removing "available since Mac OS X 10.8, Mountain
Lion", it is unnecessary IMHO. Finally, it should be "Mozilla Firefox" (the full
name of the browser).

[Sebastian Noack, 2013/09/10 10:56:29]

Agreed.
I've mentioned it because of in order to update to Safari 6, what you actually
have to do is to update to Mac OS X 10.8. Otherwise the user might try to update
Safari, will notice that there aren't any updates for Safari, and assume that he
is already on the latest version of Safari.
Agreed.

[Wladimir Palant, 2013/09/10 11:10:14]

Well, then it should at least say "available for Mac OS X 10.8 and higher"
(slightly better formulation, no code names).

[Sebastian Noack, 2013/09/10 14:20:57]

The initial version of the text said "Safari 6 (OS X 10.8) or higher", adding
the codename was a suggestion of Felix.

[Wladimir Palant, 2013/09/10 14:34:21]

I see. Maybe Felix can explain his reasoning then. Personally, I feel that we
shouldn't use code names in a consumer product. Also, I doubt that many users
can compare the actuality OS releases by their code name. Then again, Apple is
apparently putting these code names on the DVD boxes.

[Felix Dahlke, 2013/09/11 07:18:28]

From my experience, most OSX users know the code name, almost nobody knows the
version number. Apple uses the code name everywhere in their communication, the
version number itself is treated more like a technical detail.

 
 firstRun_toggle_on=ON
 firstRun_toggle_off=OFF