> [`#c27`](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926940#c27:~:text=As%20we%20(Mozilla)%20consider%20this%20API%20%22harmful%22%20to%20the%20Web%20%5B1%5D%2C%20I'm%20going%20to%20go%20ahead%20and%20mark%20it%20as%20WONTFIX%20as%20I%20don't%20want%20us%20to%20give%20false%20hope%20that%20we%20are%20going%20to%20work%20on%20this.) The current position is marked as "neutral". Is that sufficient for this to be reopened for discussion, or have I misunderstood? (I ask because this impacts ease of installation for multiple Linux distributions, like [`flash.postmarketos.org`](https://flash.postmarketos.org/#:~:text=Unsupported%20browser,the%20web%20flasher%20to%20function.), which I cannot imagine is desirable.)
Bug 926940 Comment 30 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> [`#c27`](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926940#c27:~:text=As%20we%20(Mozilla)%20consider%20this%20API%20%22harmful%22%20to%20the%20Web%20%5B1%5D%2C%20I'm%20going%20to%20go%20ahead%20and%20mark%20it%20as%20WONTFIX%20as%20I%20don't%20want%20us%20to%20give%20false%20hope%20that%20we%20are%20going%20to%20work%20on%20this.) The current position is marked as “neutral”. Is that sufficient for this to be reopened for discussion, or have I misunderstood? (I ask because this impacts ease of installation for multiple Linux distributions, like [`flash.postmarketos.org`](https://flash.postmarketos.org/#:~:text=Unsupported%20browser,the%20web%20flasher%20to%20function.), which I cannot imagine is desirable.)