Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 21:36 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Internet & Networking Now this is a subject sure to cause some discussion among all of you. LifeHacker's Adam Pash is arguing that Chrome has overtaken Firefox as the browser of choice for what he calls 'power users'; polls among LifeHacker's readership indeed seem to confirm just that. He also gives a number of reasons as to why this is the case.
Thread beginning with comment 442489
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I need NoScript
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Sep 2010 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I need NoScript"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

So what you're saying is, there are limitations on the hooks into Chrome which would impact other "Firefox Add-ins"?

Is this just an AdBlock issue or a general extensibility issue with Chrome?


According to the author of AdBlock for Chrome, it is a Chrome issue only.

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkk...

Webkit in Safari apparently does not suffer the same issue.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35897#c63
A partial solution to this problem is now available. Chrome now contains an event accessible to content scripts called "beforeload".


"beforeload" is a partial solution only in Chrome, apparently some percentage of "loads" still occur only in Chrome.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: I need NoScript
by flanque on Fri 24th Sep 2010 12:45 in reply to "RE[4]: I need NoScript"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

What I am getting at is whether or not there is some sort of API deficiency in Chrome compared to Firefox with respect to making Chrome extensible like Firefox is.

Do you know?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: I need NoScript
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Sep 2010 13:17 in reply to "RE[5]: I need NoScript"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What I am getting at is whether or not there is some sort of API deficiency in Chrome compared to Firefox with respect to making Chrome extensible like Firefox is.

Do you know?


Firefox and Chrome are both extensible using web technologies such as HTML, JavaScript, and CSS.
http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/
Extensions are small software programs that can modify and enhance the functionality of Google Chrome. You write them using web technologies such as HTML, JavaScript, and CSS.


https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/
Jetpack is a project to make it easy to build Firefox add-ons using common web technologies like HTML, JavaScript, and CSS.


HTML, JavaScript, and CSS are standardised, and they work the same way in both Chrome and Firefox AFAIK.

The particular problem for Adblock in Chrome, as far as I know, concerns the hook or trigger event (for the HTML, JavaScript, and CSS elements) called "beforeload". AFAIK, in Chrome only, the "beforeload" trigger doesn't always actually fire before all loads. Therefore, the loading of some elements that one might like to suppress is not always suppressed.

Firefox can also have extensions via its implementation of XUL.
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/XUL
XUL (XML User Interface Language) is Mozilla's XML-based language that lets you build feature-rich cross platform applications that can run connected or disconnected from the Internet.


XUL (not Jetpack) is the way extensions for Mozilla work right now. AFAIK, Mozilla want to make Jetpack the future direction, not XUL.

Chrome has nothing like the equivalent of XUL.

This is about the extent of what I think I know about it. Some of this "understanding" may in fact be dead wrong.

Edited 2010-09-24 13:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3