4 ms·
It is a factor in openness, the Browser Extension API as being developed by FF, MS, and W3c is very very limiting far more limiting than the old XUL based model
by syshum 9y ago
It is a factor in openness, the Browser Extension API as being developed by FF, MS, and W3c is very very limiting far more limiting than the old XUL based model
It can be a factor in security both positive and negative as XUL was very powerful and could be abused, but it also was used by some projects to enhance the security of FF or provide other security related functionality that is now no longer possible unless FF allows or builds it into the browser directly. Same for Privacy.
- sp332 9y agoIt's limiting at the moment because it's not finished yet. And Firefox in particular has far outpaced any third-party or industry-wide standards in adding new APIs. They've been proactive and responsive in getting feedback from addon developers while designing the APIs. I would say security addons are one of the top priorities. For example here's a blog post by the NoScript developer: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-webextensions-apis/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migrati... "I feel that Mozilla has the most flexible and dynamically growing browser extensions platform"
- syshum 9y agoI will openly admit that I am skeptical of any initiative that has the Backing of the W3C, Microsoft or Google. All of which have proven they are more than willing to sacrifice user privacy and security So since Web Extensions / Browser Extensions was started by all 3 of those entities with FF adopting them I am very very cautious of them