Mozilla Outlines Plan For Manifest V3 Extensions API (mozilla.org) 13
New submitter q4Fry writes: When Google released its changes to the Chrome WebExtensions API for comment, many groups criticized them for cutting off ad-blockers at the knees. Now, Mozilla has released its plan for following (and departing from) the APIs that Chrome may adopt.
Will Mozilla follow Google with these changes? In the absence of a true standard for browser extensions, maintaining compatibility with Chrome is important for Firefox developers and users. Firefox is not, however, obligated to implement every part of v3, and our WebExtensions API already departs in several areas under v2 where we think it makes sense.
No No No No No (Score:4, Insightful)
In the absence of a true standard for browser extensions, maintaining compatibility with Chrome is important for Firefox developers and users.
Fuck Chrome and everything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No No No No No (Score:5, Insightful)
That old xul framework is a security nightmare. If you think trojanized webextensions are bad...oh boy...
And in spite of what is being said, it is a good idea to remaim compatible with chrome where practical. The reason for this is that developers are already more likely to develop extensions for chrome because of its superior development tools and the more widely available tutorials on how to work with them. And that's not even getting into the fact that chrome is a far more popular browser. However, it puts Mozilla in the perfect position to pull a Microsoft here, but in a good way:
Think back to Java where Microsoft created their own VM that had proprietary additions that were Microsoft specific, and the intent was to pigeonhole consumers into staying on Windows (Microsoft made IE free because it correctly perceived the web as a threat to the future profitability of Windows) thus causing harm to consumers. Well, Mozilla is doing something similar to chrome's web extensions, only they're not making it proprietary, nor are they trying to harm compatibility, and most importantly, they aren't trying to harm consumer choice.
Rather, Mozilla is adding functionality that may not agree with Google's business model. They did this from the very beginning when they adopted web extensions. Remember that a common complaint about web extensions was that they didn't work with noscript...well, Mozilla added what noscript needed. They've also added what some other extensions have needed, like cookie auto delete (which served as a spiritual successor to self-destructing cookies.)
In this particular case, it's interesting because Google is actually removing functionality from their own framework, where Mozilla is essentially keeping it. I wonder what that means all of the people with privacy enhancing extensions will do...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh...erm...This is way over your head, kid. To draw an analogy, if my post was discussing stopping an airplane hijacking attempt mid-flight, you just came to me and said: "Uhh...care to explain how they're supposed to hijack the plane when we can just impound their cars so they can't drive to the airport?". And also, even if we consider the stage of the attack that you're thinking of, if there's an exploitable bug in ublock's code, that exploit can do a lot more damage to you through the xul framework than
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that from the outside it may seem they spend a lot of time on doing controversial things and I don't
Re: (Score:3)
EXACTLY!
Stop slobbing the Google knob and just make the best browser for YOUR customer-base already!
Google is shit. Their "privacy" policies are shit.
If there's an absence of true standards for browser extensions either CREATE THE STANDARD or competitively market your own solution as demonstrably better.
Fuck Chrome.
Fuck Google.
There's a reason we're using Firefox and not Chrome.
Chrome is an unwiped ass full of hemorrhoids with Google feeding everyone Colon Blow.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome is an unwiped ass full of hemorrhoids with Google feeding everyone Colon Blow.
I don't think I agree with your comment fully or at least to the degree you shared, but I did have to comment on that rare insult your just threw there. Bravo.
Please, depart. (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, encourage Firefox from further departing from this so-called "standard" that Google apparently controls. There is no need for it. Yes, it might make it so a single addon doesn't work directly on both browsers, but why should it? Didn't before. It will be largely easy to port since it is based on the same structure; that is the important part. Trying to be completely "compatible" will chain and restrict Mozilla to Google's will and restrictions. We are already clamoring for MORE API capabilities, not fewer. Note that Apple doesn't use it AT ALL, and has no signs they will. So the only browsers using "Webextensions" are Chrom* and Firefox Quantum.
Re: (Score:3)
>"I, for one, encourage Firefox from further departing from this so-called "standard"
Talk about a major typo that changes meaning! That is meant to say "I, for one, encourage Firefox to further depart." My meaning was probably evident from context.
That's what I get for not properly proof-reading.
Re: Please, depart. (Score:2)
Well, coca cola classic does.*
sed s/coca cola/edge/
From privacy to (Score:2)
From the Manifesto Addendum https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... [mozilla.org]
How about making ad blocking stronger?
So "all the peoples of the earth" can enjoy the internet without ads and tracking.
Get "committed to an internet that elevates" privacy?
The "human dignity" of been in actual control of the browser again?
Find some of the "diverse communities" with the skills to work on ad blocking and no tracking?
"Individual human beings" should not have to be tacked an