Browser Extensions Standard

Re:Browser Extensions Standard by josteink on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @08:30AM (#14899931)

I know all about the issues with Firefox, the new WebExtensions and how the "old" XUL extensions which let you do "anything" are being phased out.

I just don't see how any of that is relevant to the original comment I replied to:

> But will Google allow this to happen, as it would strip them a huge selling point for Chrome?

In what way would standardizing WebExtensions, which are already supported by all modern browsers (sans Safari), strip Chrome of selling points?

Why should Google have to "allow" this?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Browser Extensions Standard by gcp on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @10:33AM (#14901008)

Chrome currently has the largest amount of extensions, which is an advantage for that browser.

Standardized WebExtensions dilute that, because they allow easy ports to the other browsers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Browser Extensions Standard by connorcpu on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @05:36PM (#14905607)

I think the point is more, in what way does google have any power to stop other browsers from implementing this API?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Browser Extensions Standard by gcp on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @03:34AM (#14908620)

They don't. Unless you want to claim API's are copyrightable, but there are some downsides to that :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]