4 ms·

Slightly tangential, but on the topic of browser extensions: the Chrome extension API served as the basis for Mozilla's somewhat recent Web Extension API [0]. M

by foob 10y ago

Slightly tangential, but on the topic of browser extensions: the Chrome extension API served as the basis for Mozilla's somewhat recent Web Extension API [0]. Many, if not most, Chrome extensions can run in Firefox out of the box right now (there's even a Firefox extension that lets you install these from the Chrome Store [1]). This has been an incredible development for anybody doing cross browser extension development (which has otherwise been a fair bit more complicated than simply including "CSS prefixes besides -webkit"). Having different browsers compete on things like this and then having the better technology become standardized and implemented in multiple browsers seems like a fairly positive outcome. [0] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-store-foxified/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-store-...

nathancahill 10y ago
"Web Extension API" is exactly the issue at stake here. Chrome develops a new API for extensions. Everyone jumps on it. Firefox abandons it's powerful (although insecure) extension API, and re-writes it to follow Chrome's. There's a lot of marketing-speak around the reasons FF did that, but it really boils down to: Chrome is winning in the extension ecosystem, let's make them all compatible with FF too. At the loss of the entire existing extension catalog.
- yuhong 10y ago
  Another reason is Servo.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- foob 10y ago
  Firefox's extension system was powerful but there was next to no chance that XUL based UI was ever going to be adopted in the other major browsers. I'm sure that tapping in to the Chrome extension ecosystem was a big factor in the decision but I would argue that the Chrome extension API was also a far better suited candidate for cross browser standardization.
  - duskwuff 10y ago
    Firefox's extension system was arguably too powerful. Back when I ran Firefox, I regularly ran into extensions that conflicted because they monkeypatched the same parts of the browser UI.
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    Microsoft Edge is also adopting a Chrome-compatible WebExtension API: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/21/microsoft_edge_extensions/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/21/microsoft_edge_exten...
- Manishearth 10y ago
  Firefox intends to keep many of the powerful feature in its version of the extension API. The previous API was powerful because it let addons reach in to the guts of Firefox's UI and tweak whatever they wanted. This meant that some parts of the browser were frozen from being changed, and extensions broke every release. There was no public-private distinction. It seems like the plan is to add most of the capabilities that were used by the old addons in the new API, so most of the useful Firefox-only addons should still work.

by foob 10y ago

nathancahill 10y ago

"Web Extension API" is exactly the issue at stake here. Chrome develops a new API for extensions. Everyone jumps on it. Firefox abandons it's powerful (although insecure) extension API, and re-writes it to follow Chrome's. There's a lot of marketing-speak around the reasons FF did that, but it really boils down to: Chrome is winning in the extension ecosystem, let's make them all compatible with FF too. At the loss of the entire existing extension catalog.

yuhong 10y ago
Another reason is Servo.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
foob 10y ago
Firefox's extension system was powerful but there was next to no chance that XUL based UI was ever going to be adopted in the other major browsers. I'm sure that tapping in to the Chrome extension ecosystem was a big factor in the decision but I would argue that the Chrome extension API was also a far better suited candidate for cross browser standardization.
- duskwuff 10y ago
  Firefox's extension system was arguably too powerful. Back when I ran Firefox, I regularly ran into extensions that conflicted because they monkeypatched the same parts of the browser UI.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  Microsoft Edge is also adopting a Chrome-compatible WebExtension API: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/21/microsoft_edge_extensions/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/21/microsoft_edge_exten...
Manishearth 10y ago
Firefox intends to keep many of the powerful feature in its version of the extension API. The previous API was powerful because it let addons reach in to the guts of Firefox's UI and tweak whatever they wanted. This meant that some parts of the browser were frozen from being changed, and extensions broke every release. There was no public-private distinction. It seems like the plan is to add most of the capabilities that were used by the old addons in the new API, so most of the useful Firefox-only addons should still work.