Re:SeaMonkey 2.53.1
by WorldMaker on Friday February 28, 2020 @06:12PM
(#22447285)
> IIRC, there's no reason that an extension couldn't do what it did in XUL
XUL extensions were given full access to the XUL DOM for the entire browser, whereas WebExtensions are limited in their sandbox to known extension points rather than having full HTML DOM access to the entire browser.
Also, while WebExtensions still have access to messaging channels to websites/native code/outside applications, it is indirect (and permissions/sandbox mediated). XUL extensions' XPCOM (like Microsoft's COM) gave a much direct path both in to the HTML DOM of individual websites and outward for native platform code to be written in languages like C/C++.
(All of the above of which include additional reasons why XUL/XPCOM may be security liabilities if your goal is a secure browser: free reign of the browser DOM, website DOM, and easier access to native code.)
XUL extensions were given full access to the XUL DOM for the entire browser, whereas WebExtensions are limited in their sandbox to known extension points rather than having full HTML DOM access to the entire browser.
Also, while WebExtensions still have access to messaging channels to websites/native code/outside applications, it is indirect (and permissions/sandbox mediated). XUL extensions' XPCOM (like Microsoft's COM) gave a much direct path both in to the HTML DOM of individual websites and outward for native platform code to be written in languages like C/C++.
(All of the above of which include additional reasons why XUL/XPCOM may be security liabilities if your goal is a secure browser: free reign of the browser DOM, website DOM, and easier access to native code.)