My point was really about the web compat part. Sure, add-ons are great for infinite kinds of stuff, as my collection of Firefox add-ons shows :)
Web compat is an unfortunate situation and messy business. I think that first and foremost the Web has to work out of the box for users. I'm not totally sure that we're falling on the right sword by not making the Web work for our users at whatever cost, while working in parallel to change things through other channels. On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:28 AM Michael Henretty <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Dietrich Ayala <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Add-ons are for when you want additional functionality that most users do >> not want out of the box. > > > I disagree with that. I think add-ons are also great for: > > a.) demoing experimental features with the hope to get them into core > later (the atom editor project is a great example of this workflow) > b.) band-aiding broken apps/sites, or even adding functionality > > As I said in my email, the right thing to do is file a WebComp ticket (as > Karl said). But in the meantime, as a user of Firefox OS I don't want to > wait around for a 3rd party to fix their site for me (IRCCloud, Twitter, > Gmail, IRCCloud all have issues), I'm going to fix it now if I can. We > should still push on the WebComp side of things, but not suffer in the > meantime. > > And for the record, I was saying I prefer an add-on to modifying [1]. > Doing the UA spoofing in core only ensures that the problem will be hidden > from all users' eyes. At least with an add-on it is opt-in, so the each > user knows about the issue first. > > 1.) > https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/b2g/app/ua-update.json.in > > >
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
