Live data from Hacker News

The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components

briangrinstead.com

11–20 of 260 posts

Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components

#12
post #10

Security implications? Does this strip away a layer of security?

Firefox used to be built in a custom markup language called XUL, which had a number of security issues over the years as it got less attention than the HTML, etc used to render page contents.

So this should help Firefox be more secure, by decreasing attack surface.

Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components

#14
post #2

Remember when a tab freezing didn't make Firefox's UI chrome unresponsive? I do, too.

Web 4.0 is the internet of race conditions. Thanks, javascript everywhere.

I don't get it. Javascript would have categorically improved on this compared to more traditional multi-threaded solutions.

Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components

#16
post #11
post #10

Security implications? Does this strip away a layer of security?

Why would there be security implications?

There is always (most times) _some_ sort of security implications in most larger decisions we take when building software.

Especially when receiving generally untrusted input from the internet (websites, extensions, web-workers in this case) and you're suppose to display/use that somehow.

Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components

#17

People seem to love laggy web-sights, let's port the lag into the browser's UI!

Firefox has always been built with DOM, JS, CSS technologies, as the linked article calls out. This change replaces a large proprietary extension, XBL, with a standard equivalent.

Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components

#19
post #10

Security implications? Does this strip away a layer of security?

Firefox used to be built in a custom markup language called XUL, which had a number of security issues over the years as it got less attention than the HTML, etc used to render page contents. So this should help Firefox be more secure, by decreasing attack surface.

But XUL was simpler, wasn't it?
Post reply on HN