Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Jetpack, an API For Standards-Based Add-Ons

Posted by timothy on from the now-hand-me-that-metric-screwdriver dept.

revealingheart writes "Mozilla Labs have released a prototype extension called Jetpack: An API for allowing you to write Firefox add-ons using existing web technologies to enhance the browser (e.g. HTML, CSS and Javascript), with the goal of allowing anyone who can build a Web site to participate in making the Web a better place to work, communicate and play. Example add-ons are included on the Jetpack website. While currently only a prototype, this could lead to a simpler and easier to develop add-on system, which all browsers could potentially implement."

12 of 42 comments (clear)

  1. I want a real jetpack by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not some software thing!

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  2. Cough*Chrome*cough by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google, you listenin'?

  3. I use IE you insensitive clod! by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

    What are these web-standards of which you speak?

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  4. Re:What? More ways to hack a browser? by Facegarden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just what we need - more ways to mess up a browser. I thought we were supposed to be working towards standards not adding more extensions!

    The idea *is* to use standards! People already make add-ons, they might as well be interoperable too.
    Does this not make sense to you?
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
  5. got xul? by mikedeanklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about xul (xml, css, js)?

  6. Standards... by Z_A_Commando · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is great for Firefox. I really hope this takes off, pardon the unintended pun. I'm just a little leery about the other browser makers picking this up and running with it. It will need to at least be a de facto standard before Google, Apple, Opera or Microsoft even consider using it. If it's controlled by Mozilla, they're not going to want to.

    Also, (at least to me) the fact that it's difficult to write an add-on for a browser if you don't have anything but basic web development skills is what add-ons so useful. You know they're probably not going to be half-baked and have someone who (hopefully) knows what they're doing supporting it. Jetpack could lower the skill set bar too low. So to sum up, great for Firefox, but I don't think this is something that will be used across browsers once it's fully implemented, which it's not (yet)

  7. They just re-invented Greasemonkey by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think they just re-invented Greasemonkey. But not well.

    At least with Greasemonkey, there's a well-defined language. It's all Javascript. This thing seems to have some horrible mess of intermixed Javascript, CSS, and HTML. Plus it has JQuery built in, and a special symbol ("$") for it. (For a moment, I thought I was reading Perl.)

    Having done some non-trivial work with Greasemonkey, I'm not sure this thing is a step up.

    1. Re:They just re-invented Greasemonkey by sr.+bigotes · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Calling a mix of HTML, CSS, and JS a "mess" is uniformed FUD. The vast majority of the visible web is based on these three technologies, and at least in their current form, they are designed to work together pretty well. I'm not sure how you could have written any scripts in your life and not come to this conclusion. What exactly did you do with GreaseMonkey if you weren't using it to manipulate HTML and CSS?

      Also, jQuery is terribly popular. Not including support for it would have been a huge oversight. Did you just step out of a time machine from 1999?

    2. Re:They just re-invented Greasemonkey by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1 Mozilla uses Javascript for all addons, so I guess they have some idea of it.

      2 You can't program native UI-Elements with Greasemonkey, and even if, they would live inside the website as Greasemonkey is more for "patching" existing websites.
      Browser addons should survive a website navigation.

      This thing seems to have some horrible mess of intermixed Javascript, CSS, and HTML.

      This is called the web.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:They just re-invented Greasemonkey by dreemernj · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Calling a mix of HTML, CSS, and JS a "mess" is uniformed FUD. The vast majority of the visible web is based on these three technologies, and at least in their current form, they are designed to work together pretty well. I'm not sure how you could have written any scripts in your life and not come to this conclusion. What exactly did you do with GreaseMonkey if you weren't using it to manipulate HTML and CSS?

      Also, jQuery is terribly popular. Not including support for it would have been a huge oversight. Did you just step out of a time machine from 1999?

      Not trying to be a grammar nazi, but damn I want to see what Uniformed FUD looks like. I'm thinking hiking boots, bermuda shorts, maybe one of those weird mailman safari hats...

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    4. Re:They just re-invented Greasemonkey by JPortal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That may be a valid criticism, but "For a moment, I thought I was reading Perl" indicates ignorance of JS in general?

  8. Re:Oh great... by Tokerat · · Score: 2

    So now I can have a badly coded addon that spans 5 horizontal widths, has tons of flash advertisements, and a <blink> tag?

    THATS GREAT!!!

    You see, the reason it's an add-on is because it's OPTIONAL!!!

    Idiot.

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?