3 ms·
I don't personally have a problem with Mozilla trying to defend the open web. If anything should be their mission, that's a good one. And while XUL is the base
by TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
I don't personally have a problem with Mozilla trying to defend the open web. If anything should be their mission, that's a good one.
And while XUL is the base that many extensions have been built on, Mozilla are quite right to throw it out. If Firefox chucks it, I doubt forks of it will manage to maintain it well. It's half-dead already.
- icebraining 11y agoKilling XUL is not a problem in itself, what's not clear is whether WebExtensions will support the same advanced features, and the goal of keeping compatibility with Chrome implies it won't.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoChrome compatibility isn't a major goal, IIRC. WebExtensions are based on the Chrome API but will neither necessarily implement all Chrome features, nor be restricted to the set implemented by Chrome, AIUI.
- icebraining 11y agoWell, it sounded like a major goal in their announcing blog post: We would like add-on development to be more like Web development: the same code should run in multiple browsers according to behavior set by standards, with comprehensive documentation available from multiple vendors. To this end, we are implementing a new, Blink-compatible API in Firefox called WebExtensions. Extension code written for Chrome, Opera, or, possibly in the future, Microsoft Edge will run in Firefox with few changes as a WebExtension. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-dev...
- alexvoda 11y agoKilling XUL is actually a significant issue. It affects: -Thunderbird -Instantbird -Nightingale -Celtx -Blue Griffon -Pencil project -Komodo IDE And others.
- icebraining 11y agoFair enough, I meant to Firefox itself.