| > Dropping XUL breaks backwards compatability and it seems Mozilla is willing to break it before they provide adequate replacement APIs The problem is not XUL. Modifying HTML or XUL DOM via JS is roughly equivalent (setting aside XUL-only features like XBL, does this matter for many extensions?) The problem is all the internal JS APIs that add-ons can call right now, there are too many to secure and ensure backwards compat. This is why extensions break between releases so much. It's also pretty hard to program against, so there are a lot of common bugs and it's very difficult to ensure any level of security, since Firefox extensions can do anything. WebExtensions are intended to be a superset of the APIs Chrome exposes, new APIs are being added all the time. It must be possible to implement them securely and maintain them over time, unlike the current situation with internal-only APIs. > The design of the new addon signature requirements turns AMO into a walled garden and I very much do not appreciate that I disagree. Signing is required to make it more difficult for malicious extensions to persist in the wild. There's no requirement to host on AMO, just a requirement to sign if you want your extension to run in Firefox release builds. If the extension is later found to be malicious, it can be revoked without having to depend on the ID (which is set by the add-on and trivial to circumvent). > The primary concerns I have, which I left Firefox over Which browser did you switch to? There's still time to participate and influence outcomes, old-style extensions are still supported today... |