But will Google allow this to happen, as it would strip them a huge selling point for Chrome?
Browser Extensions Standard
11–20 of 82 posts
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#12Hm, if web extensions become a standard, are they really even extensions? Isn't that just new web APIs with tweaked security parameters? This is great for security and all, but browser extensions were borne out of the idea that you wanted your browser to do things that the browser vendor didn't want, or didn't even conceive of. Having it be a standard adds security but strictly limits extensions to things the browser…
> Is that a net win? I'm not sure.
While I as a developer greatly appreciate creating things with the new WebExtensions APIs over old Firefox XUL thingies, I can see how they severely limit my capabilities. If the browser says "You can't do that", I can't do that.
And based on that, you don't have to look too hard into the Firefox userbase to find out that quite a lot people have an answer for your question: "No"
(Background: Firefox is going WebExtensions only in a near upcoming release. Not everyone is thrilled about that)
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#13Cute idea, but I will eat a broom before this actually becomes reality.
[deleted]
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#14But will Google allow this to happen, as it would strip them a huge selling point for Chrome?
Please elaborate. What selling point for Chrome are you talking about?
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#15Hm, if web extensions become a standard, are they really even extensions? Isn't that just new web APIs with tweaked security parameters? This is great for security and all, but browser extensions were borne out of the idea that you wanted your browser to do things that the browser vendor didn't want, or didn't even conceive of. Having it be a standard adds security but strictly limits extensions to things the browser…
> Is that a net win? I'm not sure. While I as a developer greatly appreciate creating things with the new WebExtensions APIs over old Firefox XUL thingies, I can see how they severely limit my capabilities. If the browser says "You can't do that", I can't do that. And based on that, you don't have to look too hard into the Firefox userbase to find out that quite a lot people have an answer for your question: "No" (Ba…
> If the browser says "You can't do that", I can't do that.
Consider WebExtensions Experiments: https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io/en/latest/w...
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#16The only problem which Mozilla didn't think about or hasn't given much value to is the huge number of add-ons that are going to die or just stop working when they completely switch to WebExtensions (as there's just no replacement to the previous API in them). One of the Firefox's USPs was its addons which could modify the browser behavior and UI in any manner. It's all going to go, and Mozilla is moving closer to bec…
Mozilla has given this a lot of thought, and realized it is extremely valuable. But the value does not dwarf the downsides.
XUL extensions would block most of the Servo work, as an obvious example. You can't rely on the browser internals if those are changing underneath you.
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#17Does anybody know whether the Google Chrome / Chromium team and the Mozilla team are squarely behind this standardization effort? What about the Apple Safari team?
There's only one rep from Google in the community group. There don't seem to be any from Apple.
[1990s paranoia mode] this could be another Microsoft effort to embrace and suffocate [/1990s paranoia mode]
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#18But will Google allow this to happen, as it would strip them a huge selling point for Chrome?
Please elaborate. What selling point for Chrome are you talking about?
The add-on ecosystem of Chrome currently dwarfs Firefoxes. Firefox extensions used to be more capable, but there's just more and certainly more NEW ones for Chrome.
(I'm sure this was an important consideration for Mozilla as well - it reduced the supposed value of their "more powerful" XUL extension system, as in practice you can often find a Chrome extension to do what you want, but not a Firefox one)
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please elaborate. What selling point for Chrome are you talking about?
The add-on ecosystem of Chrome currently dwarfs Firefoxes. Firefox extensions used to be more capable, but there's just more and certainly more NEW ones for Chrome. (I'm sure this was an important consideration for Mozilla as well - it reduced the supposed value of their "more powerful" XUL extension system, as in practice you can often find a Chrome extension to do what you want, but not a Firefox one)
But Firefox can already run WebExtensions (aka Chrome extensions).
So how does this change anything?
Re: Browser Extensions Standard
#20Does anybody know whether the Google Chrome / Chromium team and the Mozilla team are squarely behind this standardization effort? What about the Apple Safari team? There's only one rep from Google in the community group. There don't seem to be any from Apple. [1990s paranoia mode] this could be another Microsoft effort to embrace and suffocate [/1990s paranoia mode]
I've been working on web extensions for multiple browsers lately.
Chrome and Firefox have workable ecosystems and accept more or less the same code, but package it differently.
Edge accepts almost the same code, but they had to change the "chrome" namespace to "browser". I suppose it was a question of pride. Also, Edge doesn't have a workable way to publish and to inline-install web extensions.
Safari accepts similar code to the rest, but organized differently. They have a slow and ponderous process for approving extensions for their store. They don't offer anything remotely resembling inline installation.