3 ms·

> This is not so much a win as a holding action after a bad choice. That choice was made over 7 years ago. It may or may not have been a bad choice, but at thi

by lapcat 4y ago

> This is not so much a win as a holding action after a bad choice. That choice was made over 7 years ago. It may or may not have been a bad choice, but at this point Firefox is well beyond the "mitigation" phase of its previous add-on API migration. As an extension developer myself, I was happy that Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all had similar implementations with Manifest V2. Now it's in a very awkward phase again.

foepys 4y ago
> Now it's in a very awkward phase again. Only because we allowed a single browser engine to become a quasi-monopoly again. Google doesn't need to adhere to addon standards, Google sets them.
gorhill 4y ago
> It may or may not have been a bad choice It was a necessary choice, the previous framework for extensions was not multiprocess-compatible.
phpisthebest 4y ago
you can not have both competition in the browser market, and every browser being the exact same all the time... I prefer less monopoly and more competition
- lapcat 4y ago
  > you can not have both competition in the browser market, and every browser being the exact same all the time... Are you claiming that there can't be such a thing as web standards? HTML? Why would an extension standard be any different from an HTML standard?
  - account42 4y ago
    Web standards should specify the semantics of HTML, CSS, etc, not dictate how exactly the browser operates. Limiting extensibility of all browsers just because there is some webextensions standard is ridiculous. Similarly, browsers should be able to ignore user-hostile parts of specs like the HSTS spec trying to dictate that users cannot override the certificate validitation. In fact, even how websites are rendered should ultimately be up to how the user has configured his browser even if some spec says otherwise. This includes being able to install effective ad blockers that remove elements and deny requests that should be there according to the standard. Think of web standards more as the definition of a common language between websites and browsers and not as a rulebook for either.

by lapcat 4y ago

foepys 4y ago

> Now it's in a very awkward phase again. Only because we allowed a single browser engine to become a quasi-monopoly again. Google doesn't need to adhere to addon standards, Google sets them.

gorhill 4y ago

> It may or may not have been a bad choice It was a necessary choice, the previous framework for extensions was not multiprocess-compatible.

phpisthebest 4y ago

you can not have both competition in the browser market, and every browser being the exact same all the time... I prefer less monopoly and more competition

lapcat 4y ago
> you can not have both competition in the browser market, and every browser being the exact same all the time... Are you claiming that there can't be such a thing as web standards? HTML? Why would an extension standard be any different from an HTML standard?
- account42 4y ago
  Web standards should specify the semantics of HTML, CSS, etc, not dictate how exactly the browser operates. Limiting extensibility of all browsers just because there is some webextensions standard is ridiculous. Similarly, browsers should be able to ignore user-hostile parts of specs like the HSTS spec trying to dictate that users cannot override the certificate validitation. In fact, even how websites are rendered should ultimately be up to how the user has configured his browser even if some spec says otherwise. This includes being able to install effective ad blockers that remove elements and deny requests that should be there according to the standard. Think of web standards more as the definition of a common language between websites and browsers and not as a rulebook for either.