3 ms·
I think thats pretty unfair when mozilla has been straight up refusing to implement webextension equivilents to XUL based functionality that a lot of addons dep
by quazeekotl 9y ago
I think thats pretty unfair when mozilla has been straight up refusing to implement webextension equivilents to XUL based functionality that a lot of addons depend on.
Such as the fact there is no way to enumerate what sites have html5 local storage stuff stored, thus no way to control or clear it on a per site basis, and they are not interested in changing this, rendering an addon like what self destructing cookies does imposisble...
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1329745 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1329745
Or the ability for extensions to construct permission sandboxing
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1353468 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1353468
There is objectively a LOT of functionality that is just plain never going to be implemented, thats far from the fault of the extension authors.
Many have been trying to work with mozilla to push in the functionality they need, but if they just get disregaurded and ignored what are they supposed to do exactly?
Don't try to place the blame for this on the extension authors.
- Animats 9y agoThere is that. For big-name extensions like UBlock Origin and Greasemonkey, there's a Mozilla bug which is used as a tracker for Firefox-side issues which need to be fixed. Lesser extensions don't get that kind of attention. When I was porting my extension, my big worry was "is there going to be something I need to do that doesn't work?" But there were no show-stopper bugs.