back to article Mozilla opens testing for Manifest v3 extensions in Firefox

Mozilla on Wednesday launched a Developer Preview program to solicit feedback on Firefox extensions that implement Manifest v3, a Google-backed revision of browser extension architecture. Mozilla last year said it intended to support MV3 in Firefox extensions, though with some differences. Its implementation of the …

  1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    Remind me again...

    Just what is the point of a browser in which one cannot prohibit adverts and scripts?

    1. nematoad Silver badge

      Re: Remind me again...

      Don't be silly.

      The browser is there to sell things to you.

      It's for the benefit of the sellers and Google.

      What you what or need doesn't come into it.

    2. DS999 Silver badge

      Not a problem for Mozilla, Safari and Brave

      Since they aren't fully dropping the older stuff (webRequest) like Google is, because they don't have a financial interest in making it harder for users to block ads on the web.

      I imagine support of MV3 at all is a nod to the reality that Chrome is the IE6 of today, and there will be more extensions available if there is less work for developers to port them to multiple browsers. In the case of ad/script blockers, it will be Chrome/Edge users who get the inferior hobbled extension, of course.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    to solicit feedback

    and then to issue a fart along the line of 'we're listening carefully, so we're going ahead with what we decided anyway'

    1. ThatOne Silver badge

      Re: to solicit feedback

      Soliciting feedback isn't about taking it into account, but only to look inclusive and understanding. "Your opinion is very important to us" and all that.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: to solicit feedback

      Nice: after soliciting feedback, they then respond with a "fartback".

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Firefox barely survived the WebExtensions apocalypse. Does this mean we're going to have to go through it all again? Hill isn't updating uMatrix anymore, which can do things uBlock doesn't even attempt like blocking 1st party URLs by default (meaning I never get duped by fake links).

  4. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Behold the web

    Democratic and open, as long as everyone else does what Google wants.

  5. breakfast Silver badge

    The inevitable fate of the most popular browser?

    Every day in every way Chrome becomes a little more IE6.

  6. Howard Sway Silver badge

    other major browser vendors have said they will support MV3 in some form

    The first browser maker to implement these APIs with functions that just do nothing, so that the web still works and the advertisers get no snooping info, has surely got to be onto a winner.

  7. Andy Non Silver badge

    Firefox is optional

    I've stuck with Firefox for many years now due to its ability to block adverts via add-ons. If that functionality ceases to work, then it will be time to consider alternative browsers. Hopefully there will various forks or others that retain the functionality?

    1. ThatOne Silver badge

      Re: Firefox is optional

      > time to consider alternative browsers


      Chrome, or Chrome? Unless of course you buy a iPuter and use Safari.

      It's not like there is any choice out there. It's Chrome or the highway, and since they increasingly own the web they'll make sure it only works in their own browser (and Safari, if it behaves).

    2. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge

      Re: Firefox is optional

      Literally from the article:

      "Mozilla will maintain support for blocking webRequest (emphasis mine) in MV3," said Wu. "To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available."

      I swear people's complaints about changes in Firefox are the "but her emails" of the browser wars.

      1. ThatOne Silver badge

        Re: Firefox is optional

        > Mozilla will maintain support

        First of all, we're in the era of removing support/features, second Mozilla does what its sugar daddy Google tells it. That been said, I definitely hope you're right, but I will only believe it if I see it (and for as long as I see it).

        (Didn't downvote you BTW.)

        1. pavel.petrman

          Re: Firefox is optional

          As per my understanding the sole purpose of theactual existence of Firefox is for Google to be able to say, Look, we're not a monopoly, there's Firefox. That is why Google pays for the development of and the whole politics around Firefox. No-one who doesn't understand how the Web actually works will go to the lengths of installing FF and all requisite add-ons to enable the actual passable browsing experience*. So there is still a bit of hope that Google will let Firefox keep keep the blocking API in order to keep our collective mouth shut about what it is doing to the general populus.

  8. ThatOne Silver badge

    Yeah sure. Pull the other one.

    > according to Google. "Our goal is not to break extensions,"

    ... but to make them disappear altogether. We can't have those pesky hippy extensions meddle with our making a honest buck now can we.

    I definitely hope that some people will try to fight back, since the whole browser engine industry (that would be Google and Apple*) is hellbent on preventing any loss of snooping income.

    * Firefox (I'm using to post this) is controlled by Google and way too busy shooting it's own feet.

    1. imanidiot Silver badge

      Re: Yeah sure. Pull the other one.

      No no, you misunderstand. Their goal IS INDEED to "not break extensions" they just missed the "unless they do things we don't like such as preventing us from getting ad-revenue" that's muttered afterwards under their breath.

  9. mark l 2 Silver badge

    If Ublock Origin is crippled by Firefox implementing Manifest v3 then ill definitely be looking to switch to an alternative browser to where it carries on working like it does at present, which will be sad as I have been using Firefox since it was still in beta.

    Although i do have chrome installed for those few website that require it, such as Oracle Cloud which refuses to accept a password change when you try to do in on FF.

    I would personally much rather use a browser that would restrict me to only using manifest v2 compatible extensions going forward even if that mean less choice, as I only use a few broswer add on with Ublock Origin being the most useful

    1. Proton_badger

      The article does address Mozilla’s intentions.

  10. imanidiot Silver badge

    My main 2 requirements for any browser in this order of priority:

    - Ublock Origin or a blocker of equal functionality

    - No-Script or a scriptblocker of equal or better functionality

    - functionally rendering web-pages

    - correctly/fully rendering web-pages as intended

    I've tried browsing without ublock and no-script. It's a no-go.

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      Good news then

      So long as you don't use Chrome or Edge, you will continue to be able to have the full functionality of those extensions.

      Whether you consider Firefox, Safari or Brave to "functionally rendering web pages" and "correctly/fully rendering web pages as intended" depends on whether you are browsing sites with lazy web devs who figure "I'll test it on Chrome and if it works then it is done" like too many did back in the IE6 days.

      About once or twice a month I'll run across a page that doesn't seem to work right in Firefox, and be forced to fire up Chrome. I don't seem to have that issue with Safari on my iPhone, probably only because the large installed base of iPhones (especially in western countries which are where almost all the sites I browse are based) won't let pages be broken in Safari for long.

      I dread the day if Apple is forced to allow the Chrome app to use its own rendering engine - lazy web devs may start ignoring Safari support and put in a "best viewed in Chrome" banner on their sites...

      1. RegGuy1 Silver badge

        Re: Good news then

        About once or twice a month I'll run across a page that doesn't seem to work right in Firefox, and be forced to fire up Chrome and just move on.


    2. luminous

      Dunno what it's worth but I use Vivaldi (which I know is based on Chromium), and then the extension ScriptBlock. I don't see any ads. Scripts are blocked unless I allow them on the site I want. I don't need anything else to have that ad free experience. Pages render correctly for me.

      I rarely, on occasion, encounter a browser without any blocking and good grief... it's a totally different world that I'm glad I don't live in.

  11. Ne body

    Still using Netscape Communicator, er Mozilla Suite, no, SeaMonkey


POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like