3 ms·

> "fixed the extension API" What does that constitute in your opinion? Because if it's "go back to XUL", that's: 1. never going to happen, 2. would invalida

by Lev1a 5y ago

> "fixed the extension API" What does that constitute in your opinion? Because if it's "go back to XUL", that's: 1. never going to happen, 2. would invalidate A LOT of work that's been done to make Firefox more performant and more secure and reduced technical debt (IIRC XUL leeched into FF internals all over the place, making pretty much any sort of update to the browser into a breaking change for extensions)

Karunamon 5y ago
Feature parity. There are still things you could do then and can't do now with this neutered 'hey-lets-be-like-Chrome' API that nobody asked for.
- dblohm7 5y ago
  You're never going to get parity to XUL extensions.
  - eitland 5y ago
    Don't need to either. Just starting in an end and fix the worst omissions would be a good start.
eitland 5y ago
No, it is not going back to XUL. But, it is amomg other things to make a function available that will remove the top tab bar or at least make it invisible. Not exactly hard, I do it manually every single time I restart my Firefox Developer edition. (Yes, the chrome (i.e. frame) around the browser window is still written in markup. I go into it with inspector and enter display:none at the right place.)