WebExtensions/FAQ: Difference between revisions

WebExtensions/FAQ (view source)

108 bytes added , 25 August 2015

Confirmed users

945

edits

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 === Why keep the .xpi packaging format? ===
-We're using JAR signing for WebExtensions. Chrome uses a different system. Since signing is necessarily browser-specific, there's no point in integrating the two.
+We're using JAR signing for WebExtensions, and Chrome uses a different system. Since signing is necessarily browser-specific, integrating the two would be difficult, and maintaining the current packaging extension for Firefox makes sense. The only part of the XPI file format that WebExtensions uses is the filename suffix, and there may be some changes to the final extension we use as we seek (and get) more feedback.
-Otherwise, the only part of the XPI file format that WebExtensions uses is the filename suffix. We haven't decided yet whether to use .xpi or .zip.
 === Are malicious addons really a problem? ===
 Yes. Please read [https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/04/15/the-case-for-extension-signing/ "The Case for Extension Signing"].