Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

Re:Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions ... by weaksauce on Saturday February 18, 2017 @12:32PM (#13675649)

Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers if they come from that channel. Is it going to catch every single malicious extension? Doubtful. Is it better than nothing? Yes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions ... by tyingq on Saturday February 18, 2017 @12:42PM (#13675701)

I suppose. The whole idea just seems to miss that for many, online data is more important than my local pc. A web extension that deleted my google account would be more disruptive than an XUL extension that formatted my hard drive. XUL is a superset, but restricting to "web only" leaves you with the most significant subset...at least for me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions ... by fuzzy2 on Saturday February 18, 2017 @01:04PM (#13675828)

> Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers [...]

But so is every other type of add-on. You even need to upload source code for binary components. (A XUL extension can include DLLs or their cross-platform equivalents.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions ... by dblohm7 on Saturday February 18, 2017 @03:30PM (#13676524)

XUL extensions may not include binary components anymore.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions ... by Amezarak on Saturday February 18, 2017 @01:01PM (#13675816)

XUL extensions are also vetted by AMO reviewers if they come from that channel, so that's no change, except to the extent they're easier to review.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions ... by stewbrew on Saturday February 18, 2017 @01:02PM (#13675820)

All add-ons are vetted by amo reviewers -- unless explicitly stated otherwise. That's no argument pro web extensions.

[ Parent | on HN ]