> I think the pro of having virtually unlimited extendability as demonstrated by tons of great and creative extensions outweigh the cons of larger attack surfac

> I think the pro of having virtually unlimited extendability as demonstrated by tons of great and creative extensions outweigh the cons of larger attack surface and higher maintenance costs for both mozilla and add-on developers. It looks like our disagreement boils down to this single tradeoff. Firefox's virtually unlimited extensibility definitely resulted in some amazing extensions that wouldn't have been possible with any less flexible system. However, I don't believe the security and maintenance costs imposed by such a system can be justified in the case of a web browser used by millions of people where security and iteration speed is paramount. Those looking to experiment without limits can still fork the browser codebase itself to build proof of concepts that way. If the proof of concept is compelling and gains enough traction, it would then become much easier to propose the necessary extensions to the WebExtensions spec and have them accepted and built. There is definitely a lot of friction to this process, but the alternative of maintaining Firefox's status quo with respect to extensions is just not going to be viable, in my opinion.