[feanaro]

In the absence of a true standard for browser extensions, perhaps Mozilla should consider trying to form one by leading with a strong example instead of weakly implying that they will eventually probably cave to the monopolist.

It's also quite disappointing how there is seemingly no one from Mozilla here, engaging with us on this topic. Instead, the only communication we get is one-sided corporate speak, with no real ability to respond.

If anyone from Mozilla is reading, who do you think will spread Firefox among non-technical users if not the type of crowd that frequents HN?

[chucksmash]

> In the absence of a true standard for browser extensions, perhaps Mozilla should consider trying to form one by leading with a strong example instead of weakly implying that they will eventually probably cave to the monopolist.

That's exactly what they've tried to do. Firefox exposes a `chrome` namespace object to extensions which is intended to be more or less API compatible with what Chrome provides and added the `browser` namespace object where improvements to the base compatibility are added (e.g. switching from callback based APIs to Promise based APIs). See the bit from the wiki below and the link to the browserext spec:

> Mozilla has worked with Microsoft and Opera to implement browser extensions so that developers can write extensions that work across multiple browsers. The preliminary specification[1] matches what Google has implemented in Chrome so that extensions will work on Chrome, Edge, Opera and Firefox.[2]

[1]: https://browserext.github.io/browserext/

[2]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/Spec

[feanaro]

Well, it's not enough to try, unfortunately. They have to persist and this talk about the importance of keeping compatibility with Chrome in the context of blocking webRequest removal is not very encouraging.