Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Extensions in Firefox 59

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 243 posts

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#81

Post by kej »

neuland wrote: post #8

> ... one of the most requested features has been the ability to hide tabs with the WebExtensions API. It was a key element of some very popular legacy add-ons ... It's weird that they are not mentioning Tree Style Tabs by name. But, at least they're listening the the user requests. I don't use the plugin myself, but I heard that one of the gripes of the new WebExtensions version is that it still shows the normal hor…

>one of the gripes of the new WebExtensions version is that it still shows the normal horizontal tabs.

In case anyone is in this position, it's relatively easy to hide them with a userChrome.css file: https://superuser.com/a/1261661

It would be nice if the extension or an easy to find setting could do it, though.

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#82

Post by soapdog »

classichasclass wrote: post #62
fenwick67 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like they've made it so you can develop a webextension that handles DAT:// or IPFS:// URLs. They didn't make IPFS:// URLs redirect to http://ipfs.io/ipfs/$hash .

Sort of. I think this is based on the `registerProtocolHandler()` means, and if so, you can redirect this to an internal page in your extension. See https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/overbitewx/ (disclaimer: authored by yours truly). The more pressing concern is how you would speak these protocols because there's still no direct socket support. In my case, the addon just acts as a history and redirect sh…

Hi, I did just like you said using Native Messaging API[1] to communicate with a local companion app using standard input/output shell calls, this app can handle the socket communication, that is how I am handling it for the scuttlebutt experiments I am doing (I mentioned them above with some URLs if you want to check), I hope to start a conversation soon on the add-ons list about the needs of having UDP and TCP available for WebExtensions. It is suboptimal but it works today...

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#83

Post by soapdog »

kodablah wrote: post #63
npongratz wrote: post #3

I find this pretty exciting for (hopefully; someday) wider adoption of alternative protocols: Starting with Firefox 59, several protocols that support decentralized architectures are available for use by extensions. The white-listed protocols are: + Dat Project (dat://) + IPFS (dweb:// ipfs:// ipns://) + Secure Scuttlebutt (ssb://)

Why does it require a whitelist? If I make my own, do I have to contact Mozilla or is the user prompted when first access is attempted?

You can make your own but it will need a prefix like "web+catgifs:" or "ext+catgifs:" depending on how the custom url is handled (redirect vs webextension), to be able to use custom urls without the prefix, you need to be on the whitelist. Thats why that little patch is cool, it enables us to build add-ons without requiring a prefix for the custom procotols used by popular dex stuff.

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#84

Post by soapdog »

fenwick67 wrote: post #49
pfraze wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is pretty great. AFAIK it's limited to only redirecting to a handler website, but that's a big step forward for using these protocols in links and etc. We're still hoping to get full protocol-handling with an API similar to https://github.com/electron/electron/blob/v1.8.2-beta.3/docs...

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like they've made it so you can develop a webextension that handles DAT:// or IPFS:// URLs. They didn't make IPFS:// URLs redirect to http://ipfs.io/ipfs/$hash .

They made that before that protocol was on the whitelist, now they could ship a native app that has a webextension bundled with it to handle all of it without using that redirect.

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#85

Post by [deleted] »

swang wrote: post #66
carussell wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I missing something You're not. This was one of jwz's big complaints when he wrote about why he doesn't use Firefox[1] several years back, and nobody has ever fixed it. 1. https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of...

don't bother to link to jwz from hn since he redirects you to (what i guess is) a nsfw image

[deleted]

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#86

Post by pbhjpbhj »

classichasclass wrote: post #71
kodablah wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it require a whitelist? If I make my own, do I have to contact Mozilla or is the user prompted when first access is attempted?

The protocol handler support is restricted to a whitelist to prevent an addon from taking over, say, " http://" (or other protocols which could be used to insinuate unsafe content).

[How] do they handle collisions of apps that can manage the whitelisted protocols then?

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#87

Post by icebraining »

kzrdude wrote: post #19
shmerl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it can undo everything, if you'll lose data in the process. Not every open page is static and some can have user input and what not. Exiting the browser will wipe it all out, and restarting it isn't going to help. So confirmation for Ctrl+Q is a must, there is no question about it. And if you don't want it - they can make an option that can turn it off.

If the page you're on would show a warning on close tab, it will show the same one if you hit Quit. HN doesn't use those warnings. This reply was first written, then I quit and restored, and now I'll hit Send.

Simple HTML pages will be preserved, but if the form is created using JS, good luck.

Yes, they probably should show a warning, but browsers developers know very well they can't rely on websites to always follow the best practices.

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#88

Post by guelo »

jay-anderson wrote: post #76
swang wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't bother to link to jwz from hn since he redirects you to (what i guess is) a nsfw image

To get around this you can disable the inclusion of the referrer. In firefox set `Network.http.sendRefererHeader` to `0` in about:config. Of course this only lets you avoid it. But, yeah, I agree. That's pretty rotten behavior and worth avoiding linking there.

Or you can just copy paste the link.

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#89

Post by anigbrowl »

kbenson wrote: post #21
vzola wrote: post #10

They mention tab groups. Mozilla, why do you play with my feelings?

What are you referring to? The containers addon does grouping, sorting, color coding, auto group association, and sandboxed cookies. Is there something else you're looking for?

There doesn't seem to be an easy way to assign an open tab to a specific container.

Re: Extensions in Firefox 59

#90

Post by soapdog »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #86
classichasclass wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protocol handler support is restricted to a whitelist to prevent an addon from taking over, say, " http://" (or other protocols which could be used to insinuate unsafe content).

[How] do they handle collisions of apps that can manage the whitelisted protocols then?

When you navigate to a custom protocol URL there is a popup asking how to handle it, it will show all the add-ons in a list (and maybe native apps too). You can select you're chosen one and tell it "not to ask again".
Post reply on HN