Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:09:03 PM UTC-6, Andrew Swan wrote: > For further discussion about the longer term strategy, I would suggest > following up with Kev Needham who oversees all of addons. Also, Mike Conca > just started as the product manager for WebExtensions. But to be fair to >

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

Sorry for the slow reply, I was half-waiting to see if anybody else would jump in but I guess product managers don't follow dev-platform :) I think we're mostly in sync on most of the nuts and bolts and the unresolved topics are generally pretty high-level concerns. On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:02

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > FWIW, I share Steve's broad concerns here. Mozilla's track record on > extension APIs has had many dead-ends and changes of direction. Now that > we're wiping the slate clean, it would be good to not repeat

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

FWIW, I share Steve's broad concerns here. Mozilla's track record on extension APIs has had many dead-ends and changes of direction. Now that we're wiping the slate clean, it would be good to not repeat history. Nick On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Steve Fink wrote: > On

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On 07/26/2017 10:45 PM, Andrew Swan wrote: On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Steve Fink > wrote: This thread worries me greatly. Somebody tell me we have a plan and policy around this already. Please? We might, but I'm not sure what

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On 26.07.2017 23:27, Steve Fink wrote: Doing this at a time of weak market share is... courageous[2]. Remember when the whole FOSS movement started - the market share was about zero. In short: better to have fewer users now with a high quality product ACK. Leave the toys to others. But

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On 26.07.2017 22:23, Karl Dubost wrote: As soon as some people are willing to adopt one of the browser > "lab-style-features" in the open, because well it solves their > issues and plays well with the ecosystem market shares, the the vendor prefix strategy is falling apart for everyone else.

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Steve Fink wrote: > This thread worries me greatly. Somebody tell me we have a plan and policy > around this already. Please? > We might, but I'm not sure what "this" you're concerned about. Whether API names should be prefixed? Or whether

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On 7/26/2017 4:27 PM, Steve Fink wrote: it's a bold move that says we're willing to take the painful hit of pissing off addon authors and users That has certainly happened... But to make the sacrifice worthwhile, that means we have to *be* a high quality product. One with a competitive

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

This thread worries me greatly. Somebody tell me we have a plan and policy around this already. Please? We're taking the regrettable but necessary step of killing off legacy style extension "APIs"[1]. Necessary because e10s and the basic impossibility of maintaining security, stability,

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

David, others, Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:58, David Teller a écrit : > moz-prefixing makes it clear that the feature can be absent on some > browsers. vendor prefixes were of a good intent, an idea of a safe space to explore a technology without breaking stuff in the real world

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On 7/26/17 3:06 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 07/26/2017 04:58 AM, David Teller wrote: >> Well, at least there is the matter of feature detection, for people who >> want to write code that will work in more than just Firefox. >> moz-prefixing makes it clear that the feature can be absent on some

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On 07/26/2017 04:58 AM, David Teller wrote: Well, at least there is the matter of feature detection, for people who want to write code that will work in more than just Firefox. moz-prefixing makes it clear that the feature can be absent on some browsers. Until the day that said other browser

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

Well, at least there is the matter of feature detection, for people who want to write code that will work in more than just Firefox. moz-prefixing makes it clear that the feature can be absent on some browsers. Cheers, David On 26/07/17 05:55, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Andrew Overholt wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:06 PM, David Teller wrote: >> Should we moz-prefix moz-specific extensions? > > We have been trying not to do that for Web-exposed APIs but maybe the > extensions case

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

Experience from Web content standards probably informs the situation here... On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Andrew Swan wrote: > For handling cross-platform versus Firefox-specific APIs, I don't think the > right outcome is perfectly clear. Of course we should learn from

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:07 AM, wrote: > I think that such an API could be spec'd such that it is portable, with > the output being flexible enough that we can put Mozilla-specific > information in there. E.g.: A fixed API to get the data, and a minimal > structure for

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

gt; wrote: > Hi all, > > > recently in couple of bugs there has been requests to add Gecko specific > APIs for extensions. > It isn't clear to me why, and even less clear to me is what the plan is > there. > I thought WebExtensions should work in several browsers, but the mor

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 8:21:23 AM UTC+12, Andrew Overholt wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:06 PM, David Teller wrote: > > > Should we moz-prefix moz-specific extensions? > > > We have been trying not to do that for Web-exposed APIs but maybe the > extensions case

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:06 PM, David Teller wrote: > Should we moz-prefix moz-specific extensions? We have been trying not to do that for Web-exposed APIs but maybe the extensions case is different? https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/ExposureGuidelines#Guiding_Principles

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

Should we moz-prefix moz-specific extensions? On 25/07/17 20:45, Jet Villegas wrote: > Based on product plans I've heard, this sounds like the right approach. We > should try to limit the scope of such browser-specific APIs but it's likely > necessary in some cases (e.g., in the devtools.) > >

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

Based on product plans I've heard, this sounds like the right approach. We should try to limit the scope of such browser-specific APIs but it's likely necessary in some cases (e.g., in the devtools.) On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote: > In my mind

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

ouple of bugs there has been requests to add Gecko specific > APIs for extensions. > It isn't clear to me why, and even less clear to me is what the plan is > there. > I thought WebExtensions should work in several browsers, but the more we > add Gecko specific APIs, the less likely

Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

Hi all, recently in couple of bugs there has been requests to add Gecko specific APIs for extensions. It isn't clear to me why, and even less clear to me is what the plan is there. I thought WebExtensions should work in several browsers, but the more we add Gecko specific APIs, the less