Fenix VS webextensions

It's been that way for years: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/20351

I lost hope it and other issues would be fixed and moved to Chromium on Android.

Firefox for Android was rewritten pretty much from scratch circa 2020. Collections are one of its many unfinished and poorly-thought-out features, and they never got around to implementing the ability to sync Collections to desktop. It was a known problem in 2019, while the rewrite was being worked on, and Mozilla doesn't appear to have given it any attention in the years since.

People have been asking for this for over a year via Mozilla's current feedback channels, and for two years on the previous issue-reporting venue, to no avail. It was automatically moved from the old venue to Bugzilla ostensibly because Bugzilla makes it easier to track and work on issue reports, but they haven't actually worked on that issue report at all.

Known issue, not a new issue, and unlikely to be fixed any time soon, unfortunately. I had this before I stopped using the Android version a year ago. It was reported as a bug at least a year ago on their old issue tracker, and later moved to the current one, where last activity on the issue report was three months ago. No apparent progress toward any fix.

Since Fenix's first release they've been saying that the absurd limitations on add-ons support were only temporary, and they would have quickly increased the number of supported ones.

And instead absolutely nothing changed for three years.

Furthermore the insane bugs from which Fenix suffers from its release (https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/12731) (making it unbearable) have been left hanging, focusing the few resources on dumb ui experiments.

So everything suggested that Mozilla did not care of its Android browser, or actually that they were deliberately sabotaging it.

This news instead represents a huge improvement, hence my bewilderment.

I don't know what people who downvoted my message thought I meant.

https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/20012 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101865

This was sadly deprecated on Android: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/12099

It was such a huge loss for me that for at least a year I used the outdated pre-Fenix. Now they still work on Desktop but they just stopped working on Android (althouth the bookmarks itself are synced-up)

I've edited my comment to also include a link to the Chrome docs, but that FAQ entry also has the link to an issue in the webextensions repository indicating it's a limitation of MV3: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/112

Google outlawing dynamic code in Web Extensions/mv3 is a travesty of high order. There's no place I want to be able to be more alive than my agents. Yet my agents must all be dead. For shame, ye villains.

https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/139

This post definitely was quite a technical explanation. The opening framing, to me, means the world.

The other big change of mv3 that gets no coverage but which is dear to me is that mv3 outlaws any kind of dynamic code. The whole app has to be statically defined. This makes it much easier to know what's running, since an extension can no longer go pull in extra code, but it greatly reduces what you can do as an extension too. Extensions have to have all behaviors predefined. I can't dial home & load my behaviors. Here's the issue, https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/139

For a while it meant that userscripts didn't have any way to run. So Google introduced a new API for user scripting. But those extensions only run in "developer" mode. I'm guessing that means when devtools are open?

I agree a lot with your premise. It sure seems like Google is targeting everyone with these changes, but that better real affordances & escape hatches need to be builtin to not maim the lives of power users. It took a long long time to come up with a userscript solution, and it seems like an awful doesnt-work-for-me workaround (I use userscripts not to dev but to modify everyday experiences). Chrome just hasn't been taking their obligation to user agency seriously.

> the extension APIs are standardised enough that this is actually possible a lot of the time

A bit off topic, but as a co-chair of the WebExtensions Community Group[1] (WECG) I'm a bit touchy about the calling WebExtensions "standardized." A few years back the Browser Extensions Community Group[2] created a spec for WebExtensions, but it never reached a state that we'd normally refer to as a web standard. (Technically W3C community groups can only produce "Reports" and these documents are not on the standards track.[3])

FWIW, I'm very bullish about specifying and (hopefully) standardizing the WebExtensions platform. I'm especially excited about having a good chunk of dedicated time to sit with browser folks at TPAC 2023[4] and try to work out some open questions about where we're going and how we're going to get there.

[1]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/

While I was trying to find out what Firefox's limits are I came across this interesting issue on the W3C's webextensions repo: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319

4 days ago the Chromium developers proposed upping the limit for certain types of declarativeNetRequest rules based on data AdGuard provided on real world rule lists.

Manifest v3 is used for Chrome's extensions system. The proposal appears to limit what extensions have access to, and what they can do in Chrome. It is proposed as a W3C standard by Google. It is being tracked at the W3C at https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/44.

Google is not even close to finishing MV3: "On the userScripts API, the proposal has been merged into the WECG but the engineering work has not started yet." https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/f8f430f1904c2a6fa8...

MV2 is sticking around until at least 2024.

Some, but not all, limitations are highlighted in this thread: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/72

Somewhat tangentially, I've been pushing for a popup/overlay API that allows to specify the position and size, and doesn't require any origin permissions.

https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/307