Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Oct 2010 21:23 UTC, submitted by addoula
Opera Software Opera Extensions have been confirmed as a feature of Opera 11. "Extensions in Opera is a way for you to easily add new functionality to your Opera browser experience. Developers can easily create extensions using open standards (HTML5, CSS, JavaScript) and supported APIs. Extensions will be based on the W3C Widget specifications and this is being considered for an Open Standard effort."
Thread beginning with comment 445170
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Vimperator
by vodoomoth on Fri 15th Oct 2010 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vimperator"
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

Bingo, someone said it!

What is that "it"? That "none of the other extension systems are not nearly as flexible as Gecko's"? That's BS as no one knows how flexible Opera's extension really is.

These are HTML/CSS/JS patches, not extensions.
using open standards (HTML5, CSS, JavaScript) and supported APIs

The teaser reads "using open standards (HTML5, CSS, JavaScript) and supported APIs", right? Moreover, the linked page says
Will Opera Extensions be similar to extensions in other browsers?

Yes, Opera Extensions will be similar in some ways and we have tried to make it easy to port extensions from certain browsers.

We are committed to open web standards and this is an important part of our strategy, so if you find us deviating from other solutions out there, this might be why.


In my mind, Firefox has set a de facto standard as to browser extensions. Should Opera go against the wealth of extensions available to FF users, they would just prove that some immensely stupid people sit in their top ranks. But it wouldn't be the first time a company shoots itself in the foot. But I hope that won't happen. Opera's own co-authored CSS became a standard, Netscape's Javascript became a standard, why wouldn't Mozilla's extension system in Firefox become a standard?
Coming this late in the "browser extension match", I would (if I were Opera of course) reuse FF's whole system and, if I have any added value, extend it. I guess the extension system itself has extension points...


Would Google ever be forced to provide extension capability to block ads, if adblock+ didn’t already exist?

We'll never be able to tell.

These sandboxed extensions allow browser vendors to veto innovation.

There's something I don't get. First, given that Chrome (or webkit?) has been praised for its sandboxing of tabs and, IIRC, efforts have been going on to sandbox the execution of programs in Mac OS X (or was it just plugins in Safari?), I thought the sandbox concept was always a good thing. Second, how can allowing extensions have the effect of vetoing innovation? Doesn't it rather allow wild ideas to come to life?
They’re good up to a point, but I feel they set a bad precedent (similar to Apple app-store).

Could you elaborate more on this?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Vimperator
by Neolander on Fri 15th Oct 2010 15:43 in reply to "RE[3]: Vimperator"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Coming this late in the "browser extension match", I would (if I were Opera of course) reuse FF's whole system and, if I have any added value, extend it. I guess the extension system itself has extension points...

I wonder if they can. AFAIK, a lot of FF's former performance issues came from the fact that a large part of the browser was written in interpreted code (XUL) so that it's easier to extend it using that language.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Vimperator
by sorpigal on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Vimperator"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

There's something I don't get. First, given that Chrome (or webkit?) has been praised for its sandboxing of tabs and, IIRC, efforts have been going on to sandbox the execution of programs in Mac OS X (or was it just plugins in Safari?), I thought the sandbox concept was always a good thing.

Sandboxing random web sites is a good idea and harms nothing. The site still functions, it just can't interfere with other sites. Sandboxing extensions is quite different since it's a lot more of a deliberate action to install and use one. An extension is supposed to extend the application and therefore needs as close as possible to full access to the application, not some small piece of it.

Second, how can allowing extensions have the effect of vetoing innovation? Doesn't it rather allow wild ideas to come to life?

Firefox extensions allow wild ideas to come to life because you can, in an extension, literally change any aspect of anything in the browser with almost no limitation whatsoever. To add a feature to Opera or Chrome or Safari and call it "Extensions" but have the feature not provide the same level of access as is available in Firefox is a limitation. So-called 'extensions' might be given a little piece of the browser in which they can operate, but this might not allow whatever radical and innovative idea the author wished to implement.

If your browser's extension cannot change any thing and everything then it's just not an extension as we know them in Firefox.

Edited 2010-10-19 12:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Vimperator
by vodoomoth on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:55 in reply to "RE[4]: Vimperator"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Thanks for the info.

After our exchange about Firefox, I downloaded two extensions, Lazarus and Tab Mix Plus... and indeed, TMP is way beyond what I thought was possible for an "extension". The options window is a marvel with so many options that despite not being a regular Firefox user, I will be making a donation. It offers many possibilities beyond what I've been used to. The only thing I haven't seen, and I didn't particularly look for it either, is the possibility to save sessions/groups of tabs in files so as to switch from one session to the other or open multiple windows each with its own session.

Reply Parent Score: 2