Benjamin Francis <mailto:bfran...@mozilla.com>
2016 February 26 at 05:15
I mainly propose the change of syntax because this transition period seems
like an opportunity to make a clean break, get rid of the vendor prefixes
and define a long term, explicitly separate to standard HTML, chrome-only
solution with a cleaner API and without having to worry about backwards
compatibility because the mozBrowser API could exist in parallel until we
phase it out.
I'd like to see this too, if only because <webview> is more ergonomic
and easier to distinguish from the existing <iframe mozbrowser> API.
However, the isolated <iframe mozbrowser> from bug 1238160 is reasonable
and a great start.
But I think a more important piece than webview is the ability to execute a
Gecko-based user agent with HTML-based chrome without having to run it on
top of the Firefox binary.
I like this idea in theory. But I want to understand how it's different
from Electron, besides simply using different underlying technology. In
other words: what makes it unique that justifies the effort? Is there
something that Gecko can provide that Chromium cannot (or is unlikely
to)? Are there parts of the Electron stack that are encumbered in some
way? Are there architectural choices that make Electron unsuitable or
suboptimal for valuable use cases?
(You can argue that developers having two options is by itself
beneficial. And I agree, in general. But I'm not yet convinced that we
should therefore invest the effort to build the second option.)
If we no longer have XULRunner, if mozApps is
phased out and B2G loses platform support we're really running out of
options for how to use Gecko for non-Firefox projects. At what point does
the platform stop being a platform and just becomes Firefox?
That point is well in the past, as Gecko development post-Netscape has
focused on the Web platform and integration with Firefox. Other uses,
like XULRunner and embedding in native apps, have been second-class
citizens, at best.
How are we
promoting innovation if we're effectively forcing alternative user agents
to use WebKit?
Mozilla's mission is to promote "openness, innovation & opportunity on
the Web." Mitchell clarified in 2007 that Mozilla's key platform is the
Open Web
<https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2007/04/19/the-open-web-as-platform/>.
I happen to think that making Gecko a great platform for building
products like (but not limited to) Firefox indirectly benefits that
mission. But doing so would still be in service to that mission, a way
to help fulfill it, and not the actual mission itself.
-myk
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
