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 …
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.
> 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).
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.
> 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.)
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.
> 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.
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
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.
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...
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
