Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon? Topic is solved
Moderators: FranklinDM, Lootyhoof
-
- Banned user
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 2022-06-02, 13:38
Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
Safari now supports WebExtensions, too. So very quickly it will become the de facto standard for browser extensions:
https://developer.apple.com/documentati ... extensions
Even though we love old XUL addons we can't dismiss the fact that no one writing new XUL addons anymore and there are very good and very useful WebExtensions based addons like this:
https://github.com/FilipePS/Traduzir-paginas-web
Safari make WebExtensions support possible via a browser plugin. This make we wonder could we implement WebExtensions support via a XUL addon the same way GreaseMonkey served as the foundation to support user scripts?
Pale Moon developers and addons developers please come in and let me know your thoughts.
https://developer.apple.com/documentati ... extensions
Even though we love old XUL addons we can't dismiss the fact that no one writing new XUL addons anymore and there are very good and very useful WebExtensions based addons like this:
https://github.com/FilipePS/Traduzir-paginas-web
Safari make WebExtensions support possible via a browser plugin. This make we wonder could we implement WebExtensions support via a XUL addon the same way GreaseMonkey served as the foundation to support user scripts?
Pale Moon developers and addons developers please come in and let me know your thoughts.
-
- Moon Magic practitioner
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: 2018-05-05, 13:29
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
I wonder why application extensions have to be the same for different applications.
Also "no one writes XUL" is something you say only after you gather enough proof to validate your claims.
Anyway in principle you can but it's a lot of work. Apple can do it because people are paid to do it; it takes a real sacrifice to the cause to do it for free and keep up with the technology.
In fact, unlike XUL that does not need any particular raducal change, WebExt are based on ever-changing directives that are updated every few months.
Also "no one writes XUL" is something you say only after you gather enough proof to validate your claims.
Anyway in principle you can but it's a lot of work. Apple can do it because people are paid to do it; it takes a real sacrifice to the cause to do it for free and keep up with the technology.
In fact, unlike XUL that does not need any particular raducal change, WebExt are based on ever-changing directives that are updated every few months.
-
- Banned user
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 2022-06-02, 13:38
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
It's about reusing code. From the beginning when Firefox started to adopt WebExtensions, developers port the Chromium extentions to Firefox addons and quickly fill AMO with WebExtensions based addons. Suddenly, Firefox now has most if not all Chromium extensions available and working, just by adopting WebExtensions. Nowadays, there are developers who develop mainly for Firefox but also port their addons to Chromium extensions because the porting is so easy. One example is this one:vannilla wrote: ↑2022-06-19, 17:47I wonder why application extensions have to be the same for different applications.
Also "no one writes XUL" is something you say only after you gather enough proof to validate your claims.
Anyway in principle you can but it's a lot of work. Apple can do it because people are paid to do it; it takes a real sacrifice to the cause to do it for free and keep up with the technology.
In fact, unlike XUL that does not need any particular raducal change, WebExt are based on ever-changing directives that are updated every few months.
https://github.com/FilipePS/Traduzir-paginas-web
Safari adopted WebExtensions and suddenly it has UbO available and working. In the future when it implementation of WebExtensions more stable it will be like Firefox, suddenly has most if not all Chromium extensions available and working.
Google just forced manifest v3 but there are still plenty of manifest v2 only extensions/addons like this one:
https://github.com/FilipePS/Traduzir-paginas-web
Install it on latest Chromium and Chromium will report full of errors and the deprecating of manifest v2.
About which manifest version to implement on our Pale Moon, I think we should implement manifest v2 first. Then adding manifest v3 but keep support for both of them, like what Mozilla does:
https://www.ghostery.com/blog/manifest- ... erspective
-
- Contributing developer
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
- Location: Georgia
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
I mean, yes there are a lot of WebExtensions out there, but what they can do is a lot more limited than what our extensions can do anyway. WebExtensions are very limited in what they can modify and are restricted from modifying the browser's behavior very much.
The other issue is that our browser isn't optimized for WebExtensions, so it would always be a worse experience than using WebExtensions in something like Edge or Firefox. It seems to me that if the extensions you want to use are available as WebExtensions, then you would be better off just using a browser that natively supports WebExtensions. That is to say... if you have a modern extension that works within the confines of what WebExtensions allows on modern browsers (which is not much) then you don't really need to run Pale Moon, you can just run that WebExtension on whatever your backup browser is and it will work great out of the box.
WebExtensions have basically already been the standard for years, I mean that's not news. But there's not much need for us to support them. We have first-class XUL support, with the compromise being that web compatibility and speed suffer. If someone were to try and use WebExtensions on our browser, then they would be dealing with poorly-supported extensions on top of everything else. That is, it would be nothing but compromises with no upside. WebExtensions are optimized for the capabilities of modern browsers and would work poorly on what we have. I honestly can't see any reason why you would want to run WebExtensions on our browser.
I mean, if you can write an add-on that is capable of making it work... then I suppose that's fine? I just don't know why you would want to...
The other issue is that our browser isn't optimized for WebExtensions, so it would always be a worse experience than using WebExtensions in something like Edge or Firefox. It seems to me that if the extensions you want to use are available as WebExtensions, then you would be better off just using a browser that natively supports WebExtensions. That is to say... if you have a modern extension that works within the confines of what WebExtensions allows on modern browsers (which is not much) then you don't really need to run Pale Moon, you can just run that WebExtension on whatever your backup browser is and it will work great out of the box.
WebExtensions have basically already been the standard for years, I mean that's not news. But there's not much need for us to support them. We have first-class XUL support, with the compromise being that web compatibility and speed suffer. If someone were to try and use WebExtensions on our browser, then they would be dealing with poorly-supported extensions on top of everything else. That is, it would be nothing but compromises with no upside. WebExtensions are optimized for the capabilities of modern browsers and would work poorly on what we have. I honestly can't see any reason why you would want to run WebExtensions on our browser.
I mean, if you can write an add-on that is capable of making it work... then I suppose that's fine? I just don't know why you would want to...
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind
-
- Project Contributor
- Posts: 203
- Joined: 2020-03-02, 16:04
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
It is at least very difficult to do. A lot of WebExt APIs work in way that penetrate security barrier between content JS and privileged(chrome) scripting... which is once again source of a lot of security bugs in Firefox. XUL APIs supersets anything that WebExts can do in prooper secure way, heck - whole UI of browser is built on it.
Last edited by Nuck-TH on 2022-06-20, 03:40, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Keeps coming back
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 2020-11-03, 06:47
- Location: Philippines
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
This question has already been asked in 2019. viewtopic.php?f=46&t=22861&hilit=webext ... +extension
TLDR: It's theoretically possible, but it would be a performance and security nightmare.
TLDR: It's theoretically possible, but it would be a performance and security nightmare.
merry mimas
XUL add-ons developer. You can find a list of add-ons I manage at http://rw.rs/~job/software.html.
Mima avatar by 絵虎. Pixiv post: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/15431817
-
- Banned user
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 2022-06-02, 13:38
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
I don't want something advanced enough to reach the extent of modifying the browser itself. I want integration with third party services.athenian200 wrote: ↑2022-06-19, 20:47I mean, yes there are a lot of WebExtensions out there, but what they can do is a lot more limited than what our extensions can do anyway. WebExtensions are very limited in what they can modify and are restricted from modifying the browser's behavior very much.
For example:
I want integration with online images converter. Most of them have Chrome extensions. You right click on a random image on a random website and could send it to be processed on the fly by the service and could be download immediately. The same also apply for online website to pdf converter sites.
I want to integrate grammarly on Pale Moon. How? They have Chrome extension, but I think they don't care about Pale Moon.
What about productivity extensions? I want to download that entire facebook album. Is there anything already available on the Pale Moon addons store for me to install and just have the work done? And what about integration with services like Evernote if I wanted? Of course they have no Pale Moon addons.
The problem is no one will write the needed addons in your so called superior XUL anymore. So pointing out how superior your technology is irrelevant.
-
- Knows the dark side
- Posts: 4981
- Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
So why are you even shitting all over the forum here instead of going ahead with a ChromeZilla browser? Pale Moon clearly doesn't fulfill your needs. Athenian200 has already told you off politely.nguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 05:18The problem is no one will write the needed addons in your so called superior XUL anymore. So pointing out how superior your technology is irrelevant.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
-
- Keeps coming back
- Posts: 943
- Joined: 2017-12-14, 12:59
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
I hoped in vain that the above promise will be kept.
-
- Board Warrior
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
How about you go away and keep using your Chrome imitation and controlled opposition which is called Firefox and we keep using Pale Moon, which has not betrayed power users for simple ones and which is a project with morals and integrity... All what Chromezilla is no longer. Even Vivaldi has more integrity and morals and user loyalty in direct comparison to Mozilla.nguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 05:18The problem is no one will write the needed addons in your so called superior XUL anymore. So pointing out how superior your technology is irrelevant.
And to disappoint you, SeaMonkey is not abandoning XUL - stop this lame trolling here.
-
- Banned user
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 2022-06-02, 13:38
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
-
- Banned user
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 2022-06-02, 13:38
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
As someone who actually spending time to read the whole of each of their status meetings I'm definitely sure they will drop XUL. The last XUL supported is the LTS 2.53.x series. And not anyone has different views than you suddenly become a troll. You are the real troll here. You have nothing to back up your claim. You only make a statement in vain and supposed it is right then use it to attack the others. As I already show you on our previous talk SeaMonkey will definitely drop XUL. You seems can't read their reports but like to argue.
-
- Banned user
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 2022-06-02, 13:38
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
I'm trying to give new ideas to help this browser keep it relevant in the future. For people like you you will not appreciate it. Because you are pleased with your own exotic platform that no one use other than you. You can't understand other's good intents. On your dictionary there is only us vs them, your mindset is only we vs our enemies you narcissis boy. You are better on my ignore list.moonbat wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 07:22So why are you even shitting all over the forum here instead of going ahead with a ChromeZilla browser? Pale Moon clearly doesn't fulfill your needs. Athenian200 has already told you off politely.nguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 05:18The problem is no one will write the needed addons in your so called superior XUL anymore. So pointing out how superior your technology is irrelevant.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20366662
-
- Banned user
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 2022-06-02, 13:38
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
Ironically it's also him that asked the same thread before me. But he think only he could ask only him has the right to ask because he is good in intent and others are just trolls and haters and are pure evil ChromeZilla secret agents to destroy his beloved Pale Moon.jobbautista9 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 01:58This question has already been asked in 2019. viewtopic.php?f=46&t=22861&hilit=webext ... +extension
TLDR: It's theoretically possible, but it would be a performance and security nightmare.
-
- Board Warrior
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
And yet the guys over there at their IRC channel say 2.57 will also have XUL support. Don't threaten others with a gun if you have zero ammunitionnguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 09:01I'm definitely sure they will drop XUL. The last XUL supported is the LTS 2.53.x series.
And the only thing in which Mozilla is good these days is "Progressive" political activism and Censorship. You seem to be such a person who belongs to their new cult. So, again, what are you doing here?
-
- Banned user
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 2022-06-02, 13:38
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
I'm a conservative. You hurted me when put me on that list you known? I believe their status meetings more than a random guy on the IRC. To verify if XUL addons will work or not just download 2.57 dev build and install UbO legacy to see if it works or not. I'm tired. I don't want to talk anymore.Sajadi wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 09:10And yet the guys over there at their IRC channel say 2.57 will also have XUL support. Don't threaten others with a gun if you have zero ammunitionnguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 09:01I'm definitely sure they will drop XUL. The last XUL supported is the LTS 2.53.x series.
And the only thing in which Mozilla is good these days is "Progressive" political activism and Censorship. You seem to be such a person who belongs to their new cult. So, again, what are you doing here?
p/s: download here: http://wg9s.com/comm-257/
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 748
- Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
I feel your pain brother. Take a break, you are working too hard on these issues. As others have pointed out, the Pale Moon policies you are referring to have been set in stone for years. You are not going to change them overnight. You seem like a bright guy, why don't you try your hand at forking an old xul extension, enjoy the process. I'll bet you would find you rather enjoy the freedom with which you can code changes in that kind of extension.nguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 09:16I'm a conservative. You hurted me when put me on that list you known?
-
- Contributing developer
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
- Location: Georgia
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
Well, a lot of Pale Moon users are uncomfortable with third-party service integration anyway. People who come here are often going away from other browsers because of too much third-party service integration.nguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 05:18I don't want something advanced enough to reach the extent of modifying the browser itself. I want integration with third party services.
I understand that you want to do all those things. Those services obviously don't support Pale Moon (heck, Facebook's website doesn't even work properly in Pale Moon), so you will have to use a different browser for third-party service integration. Chasing support for whatever extension standard authors are currently targeting would eventually force us to be the same as every other browser on the market, and at that point there would be no point in continuing the project at all because there are tons of browsers that already do that and we'd just be another one of many ordinary browsers. I will just say out right that third-party service integration is not a priority for us, and is viewed by many users as a negative anyway. You should use a backup browser for those services. It's really that simple... use WebExtensions on your backup browser for services that are designed to integrate with the Chromium stuff, that is if you actually trust those services...I want integration with online images converter. Most of them have Chrome extensions. You right click on a random image on a random website and could send it to be processed on the fly by the service and could be download immediately. The same also apply for online website to pdf converter sites.
I want to integrate grammarly on Pale Moon. How? They have Chrome extension, but I think they don't care about Pale Moon.
What about productivity extensions? I want to download that entire facebook album. Is there anything already available on the Pale Moon addons store for me to install and just have the work done? And what about integration with services like Evernote if I wanted? Of course they have no Pale Moon addons.
If you have the mentality that all that matters is what third-party services will support and what it is popular, then obviously Pale Moon is not popular and its extension technology is not popular. Why are you mentioning that as if you are making a point when it's common knowledge? We all know that already and have known it for years. Everyone here is willing to live with the difficulties and limitations of using something that doesn't do things the "popular" way. If you're not, then I don't get why you are here.The problem is no one will write the needed addons in your so called superior XUL anymore. So pointing out how superior your technology is irrelevant.
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind
-
- Moon lover
- Posts: 83
- Joined: 2022-03-08, 22:02
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
I have been a Pale Moon user since 2017. I replaced Firefox the moment it became clear that Mozilla was going to drop "legacy add-ons" (i.e. XUL).nguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-19, 17:04Even though we love old XUL addons we can't dismiss the fact that no one writing new XUL addons anymore
I currently use many "add-ons" ( too many ) and "Custom Buttons":
- 46 "add-ons" (24 of these are programmed by me)
- 42 "Custom Buttons" (38 of these are programmed by me)
They make my Internet experience very enjoyable
For me, programming add-ons is a hobby (not just a useful activity).
I also programmed two add-ons in Google Chrome, due to the fact that Pale Moon wasn't working correctly on a website I needed. This unpleasant experience made me appreciate even more the XUL-based add-on system, i.e. the one used by Pale Moon and abandoned by Firefox.
Pale Moon does indeed have web compatibility issues. Despite this, Pale Moon remains an incomparably friendlier and more useful browser than any other browser I have tested to date.nguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 09:06I'm trying to give new ideas to help this browser keep it relevant in the future.
As Moonchild says: "the base premise behind Pale Moon will not change and it will not go Quantum. XUL is too powerful and versatile of a concept to abandon. It has so much potential and if nothing else I want to bring that potential to our users".
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27682&start=60#p222463
-
- Keeps coming back
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 2020-11-03, 06:47
- Location: Philippines
Re: Implement WebExtensions support in Pale Moon via an addon?
You keep saying that, yet you haven't provided any link to one of their status meetings where they said that.nguyen9173 wrote: ↑2022-06-20, 09:01As someone who actually spending time to read the whole of each of their status meetings I'm definitely sure they will drop XUL. The last XUL supported is the LTS 2.53.x series. [...] You have nothing to back up your claim.
Meanwhile frg, who is the de facto project leader of SM says this in mozillaZine:
And according to Mozilla's Wiki:frg wrote:2018-11-08, 11:092.57 will support legacy add-ons but they might need to be fixed up for changed and removed apis.
Thunderbird/Add-ons Guide 57 wrote: Legacy, pre-version 57 add-ons - Thunderbird 57-60 (and Seamonkey [2.53-2.57]) still support legacy add-ons (except binary add-ons, see below), but all add-on authors must check to see whether code changes are needed.
merry mimas
XUL add-ons developer. You can find a list of add-ons I manage at http://rw.rs/~job/software.html.
Mima avatar by 絵虎. Pixiv post: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/15431817