I realize, and very much appreciate that extensions on Phoebus receive some vetting.
But it was never my impression that this vetting was meant to displace the user's personal judgment or responsibility (and am surprised that it's lack may come to be be treated as a reason to withold browser support, which it never has been thus far):
New Tobin Paradigm wrote: The vetting of add-ons that land on the Add-ons Site is limited to casual function testing to ensure the initial submission doesn't bust the browser, quick looksee to make sure it doesn't do anything terrible like unwarranted harvesting of data or strict illegal activity, that sort of thing. After that periodically testing for the same on a reactionary basis.
Then is it planned to deny browser support to anyone who uses an extension hosted somewhere other than Phoebus?Moonchild wrote: ↑2021-04-22, 17:45Explicitly using extensions from un-vetted sources while alternatives from APMO exist, though, may have some consequences in case you have trouble with the browser in terms of how much help you'll get. So there certainly is an inherent reason to switch to it if you expect support.
(in the manner that you currently deny support to users of NoScript)
If so, why?
I realize that changes are planned to the extension install manifest, such that current extensions will break, or not install, unless they are modified to use the new format.
But if the documentation is posted for this format, as mentioned in the linked post, won't extension developers/maintainers (or forkers, or users) be able to adjust for this change no matter where the extension is hosted ? Wouldn't use of the validator be vetting enough to rule out support requests coming from non-updated extensions ?