(01-24-2019, 04:15 PM)CentBrowser Wrote: The problem is that most extensions are targeted at Chrome but not other Chromium browsers.
So even if these browsers keep webRequest API, it may make no big difference for these extensions.
Once Chrome takes that step, these extensions may change their design to fit Chrome, it is quite unlikely they will stick to webRequest API supported by other Chromium browsers.
Sorry for the delay for my answer I did not receive the alert that you have answered I will look in my spam folder in the future.
I'm pretty sure many developers of major extension like UBO, Stylish Tampermonkey etc would be interested in a chromium fork targeted at power-users that would remain compatible with version 2 of the extension manifest while while being also compatible with V3.
So you could even have a CentBrowser store to host specific extension that would take advantage of more powerful V2 API. It's not only about WebRequest but also at many other changes like removing background page that would break ~50% of the extensions.
You say " these extensions may change their design to fit Chrome" and it's not really true since for many of those popular extensions it would be impossible for them to accomplish their purposes with the new weak API.
For CentBrowser making a commitment to keep retro-compatibility with V2 Manifest while integrating V3 would make a big différentiation factor from other Chromium fork and would gain lot of traction among power-users around the world.
Once the retro-compatibility code integrated in the code it should not be to hard to maintain, at first it would take some work to integrate it but after it would be low maintenance for the future if the integration was done properly.
CentBrowser would have lot of visibility since power-users would recommend it to casual users as their daily browser.
Regards
