9 ms·

WebExtensions in Firefox 52

167 points by AndrewDucker 10y ago

diminish 10y ago
Cool work, and When do WebComponents become enabled by default, does anyone know?
- Touche 10y ago
  Doesn't look like they are really actively working on it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=889230 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=889230 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205323 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205323 Which is weird because FF devs are active in spec discussion for web components. Maybe they are working on some lower-level infrastructure stuff before they can tackle these, I'm not sure.
  - spankalee 10y ago
    If you look at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1274159 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1274159 there's recent activity on Custom Elements.
  - Manishearth 10y ago
    Firefox already has most of the pieces for web components because XBL (an XML thingy for building UI widgets that is basically WebComponents but older). I suspect it's just blocked on deciding when the spec is ready for implementation in Firefox.
    - diminish 10y ago
      Most web component websites suffer badly on Firefox, due to polyfills. I m still hopeful.
Figs 10y ago
So, is this the version of Firefox that kills all existing add-ons?
- mp3geek 10y ago
  no, its just an update on its current progress
- oblio 10y ago
  Haven't they been working with add-on makers to port things over?
  - hackernews2000 10y ago
    Yes. * https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/08/02/multi-process-firefox-and-add-ons-a-call-to-action/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/08/02/multi-process-fir... * https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Working_with_multiprocess_Firefox#Adapting_to_Multiple_Processes https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Working_with_multiproc...
    - kuschku 10y ago
      So, when will we be able to use WebExtensions to modify the main UI’s scripts and DOM? I want to add tab previews with screenshots on hover (as in vivaldi), I want to use custom history (and completely change the way the omnibar works by searching through that custom history server with fulltext indexing of all visited webpages). When can we expect that (which is possible with existing extensions) to land in WebExtensions?
      - jupenur 10y ago
        Not any time soon. They're aiming for maximum compatibility with Chrome extensions, and Chrome doesn't have anything like that, so I wouldn't expect it to be a priority in Firefox either.
        10y ago
conductor 10y ago
Is there going to be a permissions system where I can specifically choose which set of APIs I allow to dispose to each extension?
- jupenur 10y ago
  Yes, there already is. Firefox enforces the same manifest permissions in WebExtensions as Chrome.
  - lucideer 10y ago
    I assumed that the GP meant a permissions system for users, not for WebExtension developers. I don't believe there is that. It seems like it would be relatively trivial to add given the manifest permissions system is already in place though.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > I assumed that the GP meant a permissions system for users This seems far beyond the capabilities of most users to understand. Perhaps someone can make an add-on for power users who are interested.
      - nightpool 10y ago
        Android and iPhone do it, so....
        wlesieutre 10y ago
        For some privileges. You can say "No, don't allow photos access," but there are other permissions like internet access that you can't block.
        madeofpalk 10y ago
        Actually for certain classes of iOS 'apps' you can do exactly this - to enable third party iOS keyboard access you need to go into Settings and enable an extended privilege set (which includes internet access)
lukaa 10y ago
Firefox should concentrate on its biggest asset, ability to customize natively. For example I would like option to customize right click so when i right click term i would like to have ability to search by all search engines that i want to use not only default.Also most annoying thing in both browsers is not having ability to copy link as text not only its address.
- halflings 10y ago
  You can copy links as text (at least in Chrome): just right-click and choose "Copy".
  - berdario 10y ago
    It's weird, I remember a similar option being there, but it's not (neither in Firefox nor Chrome) http://imgur.com/a/ncvyt http://imgur.com/a/ncvyt
    - homero 10y ago
      Android still has it
      - pritambaral 10y ago
        It makes extra sense to have it on touch-only platforms, where selecting text is more difficult (and long-pressing a link doesn't initiate text selection).
    - nightpool 10y ago
      WFM on Mac: http://i.imgur.com/67G6R1p.png http://i.imgur.com/67G6R1p.png
      - weaksauce 10y ago
        Doesn't work unless you select the text for me.
floopidydoopidy 10y ago
The thing I like about Mozilla is that it isn't Microsoft or Google. Should I be buying more tinfoil?
- pryelluw 10y ago
  No, that's ok. That's one of the reasons I use ff as well.
  - addicted 10y ago
    It's a good reason IMO. MS browsers push MS services and Google does the same with Chrome. For example, I have to be logged in with my G account to download an extension for my browser. I am struggling to see the connection between the two. Finally, google links everything together (as we saw with the resold Pixel debacle), so why would I want to increase the risk of breaking Google TOS by using their browser.
    - Animats 10y ago
      Firefox pushes Mozilla services, such as their "Sync". They've also pushed commercial services, such as "Pocket", over user objections.[1] And, of course, they were paid to make Yahoo (of all things) the default search engine. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/i_IindFDxxgJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PY...
      - techwizrd 10y ago
        They don't really push Sync. Most people are unaware of it. I disagree with many of the concerns over Pocket as they are alarmist and overblown. The Pocket code is MPLv2 (open-source) and it isn't "spyware". This is trivially verified by looking at the code. Mozilla used to have a partnership with Google that accounted for 85% to 91% of their revenue. Mozilla needs funding to survive, and Yahoo! provides some of that funding. It is a false equivalence to suggest that the way Microsoft or Google pushes their services is anything like Mozilla's actions. Mozilla has always pushed for an open web and strong privacy protections. Google only implemented Do Not Track after Firefox did. Mozilla just released an ad-blocking browser for iOS to go along with their ad-blocking add-on. Comments like these only push that false equivalence.
wiiittttt 10y ago
The post indicates that 52 was released this week, but Developer Edition still shows the latest update is 51.0a2 for me. Anyone else?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- caiob 10y ago
  Same here.
msh 10y ago
Why do browser makers keep implementing new ways for companies to spy on end users? I had expected better of Mozilla. The response to the web of trust shit show should have been to neuter add ons.
- nnethercote 10y ago
  Mozilla has been gradually restricting what add-ons can do in Firefox precisely because of problems with malware. This is another step in that process.
Animats 10y ago
This is basically "we have to be compatible with the guys with the bigger market share". Unclear why. Nobody installs add-ons on Chrome. I have the same add-on for Firefox and Chrome, and it has 100x the installs on Firefox that it does on Chrome.
- jupenur 10y ago
  The current Firefox extension platform is a mess. There are XUL add-ons, Jetpack add-ons, and SDK add-ons, nothing is fully compatible with E10s, and to say the security features are lacking would be an understatement. The Chrome platform on the other hand was designed to be multi-process from the ground up, has some solid security research behind it (like actual academic studies), and generally just makes sense. The Chrome extension system (or something very similar to it) is also already supported in a bunch of other browsers, so why would Mozilla not use it in theirs? E: typo
- cpeterso 10y ago
  uBlock Origin, as a random popular example, has 2,231,919 users on Firefox and 6,483,302 users on Chrome. So Chrome has almost 3x as many uBlock Origin installs, though Chrome has about 5x more users than Firefox. From this one data point, it would seem that people using Firefox use more extensions, which interesting. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/statistics/?last=30 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...
  - Sylos 10y ago
    Might be a bad example, as Mozilla is promoting uBlock Origin right on the first page in the Add-ons section. It takes just three clicks to go from a newly installed Firefox to having uBlock Origin installed. Then again, though, they only just recently switched that over from previously promoting AdBlock Plus, so I don't know how much of an increase that has caused in that time.
- pygy_ 10y ago
plq 10y ago
Will I be able to keep my tree style tabs? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta... The moment this plugin stops working is the moment I stop upgrading. Seriously!
- Sephr 10y ago
  Chrome used to natively support tree-style tabs. Unfortunately they were removed a few years ago.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  Tree Style Tabs should continue to work. It's a very popular extension. Mozilla should probably include a disclaimer about Tree Style Tabs still working with any blog post about WebExtensions. :) Mozilla is now beta testing a prototype of native Firefox vertical tabs, though it is not as advanced as Tree Style Tabs: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center
  - razster 10y ago
    Vivaldi has a nice Tree tab style that I constantly use, it has become second nature - we're even looking at replicating it for our enrollment software, crazy enough.
- weaksauce 10y ago
  they have a bug that tracks this use case https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596 and a larger in scope bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1315819 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1315819

167 points by AndrewDucker 10y ago

diminish 10y ago

Cool work, and When do WebComponents become enabled by default, does anyone know?

Touche 10y ago
Doesn't look like they are really actively working on it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=889230 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=889230 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205323 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205323 Which is weird because FF devs are active in spec discussion for web components. Maybe they are working on some lower-level infrastructure stuff before they can tackle these, I'm not sure.
- spankalee 10y ago
  If you look at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1274159 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1274159 there's recent activity on Custom Elements.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  Firefox already has most of the pieces for web components because XBL (an XML thingy for building UI widgets that is basically WebComponents but older). I suspect it's just blocked on deciding when the spec is ready for implementation in Firefox.
  - diminish 10y ago
    Most web component websites suffer badly on Firefox, due to polyfills. I m still hopeful.

Figs 10y ago

So, is this the version of Firefox that kills all existing add-ons?

mp3geek 10y ago
no, its just an update on its current progress
oblio 10y ago
Haven't they been working with add-on makers to port things over?
- hackernews2000 10y ago
  Yes. * https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/08/02/multi-process-firefox-and-add-ons-a-call-to-action/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/08/02/multi-process-fir... * https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Working_with_multiprocess_Firefox#Adapting_to_Multiple_Processes https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Working_with_multiproc...
  - kuschku 10y ago
    So, when will we be able to use WebExtensions to modify the main UI’s scripts and DOM? I want to add tab previews with screenshots on hover (as in vivaldi), I want to use custom history (and completely change the way the omnibar works by searching through that custom history server with fulltext indexing of all visited webpages). When can we expect that (which is possible with existing extensions) to land in WebExtensions?
    - jupenur 10y ago
      Not any time soon. They're aiming for maximum compatibility with Chrome extensions, and Chrome doesn't have anything like that, so I wouldn't expect it to be a priority in Firefox either.
      - 10y ago

conductor 10y ago

Is there going to be a permissions system where I can specifically choose which set of APIs I allow to dispose to each extension?

jupenur 10y ago
Yes, there already is. Firefox enforces the same manifest permissions in WebExtensions as Chrome.
- lucideer 10y ago
  I assumed that the GP meant a permissions system for users, not for WebExtension developers. I don't believe there is that. It seems like it would be relatively trivial to add given the manifest permissions system is already in place though.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > I assumed that the GP meant a permissions system for users This seems far beyond the capabilities of most users to understand. Perhaps someone can make an add-on for power users who are interested.
    - nightpool 10y ago
      Android and iPhone do it, so....
      - wlesieutre 10y ago
        For some privileges. You can say "No, don't allow photos access," but there are other permissions like internet access that you can't block.
        madeofpalk 10y ago
        Actually for certain classes of iOS 'apps' you can do exactly this - to enable third party iOS keyboard access you need to go into Settings and enable an extended privilege set (which includes internet access)

lukaa 10y ago

Firefox should concentrate on its biggest asset, ability to customize natively. For example I would like option to customize right click so when i right click term i would like to have ability to search by all search engines that i want to use not only default.Also most annoying thing in both browsers is not having ability to copy link as text not only its address.

halflings 10y ago
You can copy links as text (at least in Chrome): just right-click and choose "Copy".
- berdario 10y ago
  It's weird, I remember a similar option being there, but it's not (neither in Firefox nor Chrome) http://imgur.com/a/ncvyt http://imgur.com/a/ncvyt
  - homero 10y ago
    Android still has it
    - pritambaral 10y ago
      It makes extra sense to have it on touch-only platforms, where selecting text is more difficult (and long-pressing a link doesn't initiate text selection).
  - nightpool 10y ago
    WFM on Mac: http://i.imgur.com/67G6R1p.png http://i.imgur.com/67G6R1p.png
    - weaksauce 10y ago
      Doesn't work unless you select the text for me.

floopidydoopidy 10y ago

The thing I like about Mozilla is that it isn't Microsoft or Google. Should I be buying more tinfoil?

pryelluw 10y ago
No, that's ok. That's one of the reasons I use ff as well.
- addicted 10y ago
  It's a good reason IMO. MS browsers push MS services and Google does the same with Chrome. For example, I have to be logged in with my G account to download an extension for my browser. I am struggling to see the connection between the two. Finally, google links everything together (as we saw with the resold Pixel debacle), so why would I want to increase the risk of breaking Google TOS by using their browser.
  - Animats 10y ago
    Firefox pushes Mozilla services, such as their "Sync". They've also pushed commercial services, such as "Pocket", over user objections.[1] And, of course, they were paid to make Yahoo (of all things) the default search engine. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/i_IindFDxxgJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PY...
    - techwizrd 10y ago
      They don't really push Sync. Most people are unaware of it. I disagree with many of the concerns over Pocket as they are alarmist and overblown. The Pocket code is MPLv2 (open-source) and it isn't "spyware". This is trivially verified by looking at the code. Mozilla used to have a partnership with Google that accounted for 85% to 91% of their revenue. Mozilla needs funding to survive, and Yahoo! provides some of that funding. It is a false equivalence to suggest that the way Microsoft or Google pushes their services is anything like Mozilla's actions. Mozilla has always pushed for an open web and strong privacy protections. Google only implemented Do Not Track after Firefox did. Mozilla just released an ad-blocking browser for iOS to go along with their ad-blocking add-on. Comments like these only push that false equivalence.

wiiittttt 10y ago

The post indicates that 52 was released this week, but Developer Edition still shows the latest update is 51.0a2 for me. Anyone else?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
caiob 10y ago
Same here.

msh 10y ago

Why do browser makers keep implementing new ways for companies to spy on end users? I had expected better of Mozilla. The response to the web of trust shit show should have been to neuter add ons.

nnethercote 10y ago
Mozilla has been gradually restricting what add-ons can do in Firefox precisely because of problems with malware. This is another step in that process.

Animats 10y ago

This is basically "we have to be compatible with the guys with the bigger market share". Unclear why. Nobody installs add-ons on Chrome. I have the same add-on for Firefox and Chrome, and it has 100x the installs on Firefox that it does on Chrome.

jupenur 10y ago
The current Firefox extension platform is a mess. There are XUL add-ons, Jetpack add-ons, and SDK add-ons, nothing is fully compatible with E10s, and to say the security features are lacking would be an understatement. The Chrome platform on the other hand was designed to be multi-process from the ground up, has some solid security research behind it (like actual academic studies), and generally just makes sense. The Chrome extension system (or something very similar to it) is also already supported in a bunch of other browsers, so why would Mozilla not use it in theirs? E: typo
cpeterso 10y ago
uBlock Origin, as a random popular example, has 2,231,919 users on Firefox and 6,483,302 users on Chrome. So Chrome has almost 3x as many uBlock Origin installs, though Chrome has about 5x more users than Firefox. From this one data point, it would seem that people using Firefox use more extensions, which interesting. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/statistics/?last=30 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...
- Sylos 10y ago
  Might be a bad example, as Mozilla is promoting uBlock Origin right on the first page in the Add-ons section. It takes just three clicks to go from a newly installed Firefox to having uBlock Origin installed. Then again, though, they only just recently switched that over from previously promoting AdBlock Plus, so I don't know how much of an increase that has caused in that time.
pygy_ 10y ago

plq 10y ago

Will I be able to keep my tree style tabs? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta... The moment this plugin stops working is the moment I stop upgrading. Seriously!

Sephr 10y ago
Chrome used to natively support tree-style tabs. Unfortunately they were removed a few years ago.
cpeterso 10y ago
Tree Style Tabs should continue to work. It's a very popular extension. Mozilla should probably include a disclaimer about Tree Style Tabs still working with any blog post about WebExtensions. :) Mozilla is now beta testing a prototype of native Firefox vertical tabs, though it is not as advanced as Tree Style Tabs: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center
- razster 10y ago
  Vivaldi has a nice Tree tab style that I constantly use, it has become second nature - we're even looking at replicating it for our enrollment software, crazy enough.
weaksauce 10y ago
they have a bug that tracks this use case https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596 and a larger in scope bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1315819 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1315819