3 ms·
Um, no. "Regular" extensions used XUL. XUL is mostly gone. "Regular" extensions worked by directly modifying the code that controlled the browser and content, s
by sfink 4y ago
Um, no. "Regular" extensions used XUL. XUL is mostly gone. "Regular" extensions worked by directly modifying the code that controlled the browser and content, sometimes by decompiling existing functions and patching them with search & replace. Now the content is in its own process, the extension is in a sandbox, and the only code you can screw up with search & replace is your own extension's.
The browser has been "crippled" into a much better architecture.
But yes, there are some seemingly arbitrary restrictions on what APIs are exposed. Some are to save people from themselves, some aren't implemented because of the maintenance burden or resource cost, and some are a result of bad prioritization and/or lack of vision. Reasonable people disagree about what falls into which category.
- einpoklum 4y ago> Um, no. "Regular" extensions used XUL They can use HTML and Javascript, same as Firefox' internals; > XUL is mostly gone ... but the UI capabilities stay the same. It's just like that for extensions. > Now the content is in its own process, the extension is in a sandbox, and the only code you can screw up with search & replace is your own extension's. That approach is the whole problem: The view of extension code as somehow inferior to Firefox' own code. Those are both applications, not the code from some website run inadvertently when you visit a web page, but something you installed because you wanted to have run. > some aren't implemented Everything is implemented - inside FF. It's just arbitrarily being kept inaccessible to extensions. Note that, in Thunderbird, a small hole-in-the-wall has been implemeneted, for loading regular extensions, and they are able to run with full privileges and do the work they need to be doing.