Thank you for explaining the difference between XPCOM and XUL layouts
> that isn't a valid argument that XUL should be kept around forever any more than the fact that 16-bit DOS apps have direct control over the hardware is a valid argument that DOS support should be kept around forever
I don't think I argued that it should be kept around forever. The point I was refuting was that Web Extensions are ready to replace existing firefox extensions. At some point it will be true that Web Extensions are as capable as existing firefox extensions. At that point deprecating existing extensions make sense (or slightly sooner). Lots of people rely on existing extensions. Taking those extensions away without a real alternative solution is just rude to end users. This move may be past due from a security standpoint, but it is extremely premature from a user experience perspective.
> that isn't a valid argument that XUL should be kept around forever any more than the fact that 16-bit DOS apps have direct control over the hardware is a valid argument that DOS support should be kept around forever
I don't think I argued that it should be kept around forever. The point I was refuting was that Web Extensions are ready to replace existing firefox extensions. At some point it will be true that Web Extensions are as capable as existing firefox extensions. At that point deprecating existing extensions make sense (or slightly sooner). Lots of people rely on existing extensions. Taking those extensions away without a real alternative solution is just rude to end users. This move may be past due from a security standpoint, but it is extremely premature from a user experience perspective.