In my mind at least the concept is to share the API across all browsers where we can, but WebExtensions should not be limited to APIs that are accepted and implemented by all browser vendors. Google extensions have some Google app specific API that we might never implement because of technical limitations, and we certainly plan to add APIs that Google will never implement because of policy reasons for example.
I hope one day we can even have decent specs around some of the common API ( https://browserext.github.io/), and for new APIs I guess we should try to work together with other vendors as much as possible IF that makes sense. But if it's about an API that is needed for a popular Firefox specific extension to be ported, and it's totally out of policy for Google extensions anyway, then we should "only" care about security and the extra cost it might cause for US to keep supporting it. And since we're trying to move away from manual review http://www.agmweb.ca/2017-07-11-manual-review/ we should probably be quite conservative about what we accept. Gabor On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, smaug <sm...@welho.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > > recently in couple of bugs there has been requests to add Gecko specific > APIs for extensions. > It isn't clear to me why, and even less clear to me is what the plan is > there. > I thought WebExtensions should work in several browsers, but the more we > add Gecko specific APIs, the less likely > that will be. > > Could someone familiar WebExtensions clarify this a bit? Do we have some > policy here. Should we be as strict as with web APIs, or allow some > exceptions or do whatever people want/need? > > > > > -Olli > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
