Provide an alternative to AddSearchProvider for web content
Categories
(Firefox :: Search, enhancement, P3)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: roy-orbison, Unassigned)
Details
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1504338 +++
Bug #1503551 disabled window.external.AddSearchProvider. However, it was the only reasonable, convenient way of offering people to install new search engines.
It is not only extensions that are affected, as per Bug #1504338, there is now no way at all to add search engines from within standard web content. An engine can only be added from the browser UI that is hidden by default (and only hinted at with a tiny green plus badge if you have the separate search box enabled). Forcing users to trust third party extensions for such basic functionality that already exists/existed is a step backwards.
From, say, a results page on mycroftproject.com the browser UI is woefully inadequate for selecting any of those results, even if that page added all the results as <link>s in the <head>.
I suggest allowing regular links to invoke the same installation of search engines like so:
<a rel="search"
type="application/opensearchdescription+xml"
title="searchTitle"
href="pluginURL">Add a this site to your search providers</a>
since relevant attributes of <link> and <a> are compatible, and/or allow installation when an XML file is served with the application/opensearchdescription+xml MIME-type.
It was argued that Firefox need not have this functionality because
having differing implementations across browser hurts the open internet.
...but by that logic, Firefox should follow all such decisions by Google because Chrome has greatest market share, despite Mozilla being for an open Internet, and Google being for a walled garden, wherein they observe every single query.
The point is, it has become too difficult to add search engines, and the userland alternatives (like %s-expanded bookmarks) are inferior to self-updating OpenSearch definitions.
|
||
Comment 1•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Roy Orbison from comment #0)
Bug #1503551 disabled
window.external.AddSearchProvider. However, it was the only reasonable, convenient way of offering people to install new search engines.It is not only extensions that are affected, as per Bug #1504338, there is now no way at all to add search engines from within standard web content.
Websites have two options today to allow users to install search engines:
- Offer an OpenSearch engine via the
<link rel="search">headers. - Offer WebExtension search engines via normal extension install links. These are not strictly OpenSearch engines but behave in exactly the same manner and have the same options available.
An engine can only be added from the browser UI that is hidden by default (and only hinted at with a tiny green plus badge if you have the separate search box enabled). Forcing users to trust third party extensions for such basic functionality that already exists/existed is a step backwards.
We've had search engines available and used on addons.mozilla.org, as well as being able to be delivered via other methods for a while now. DuckDuckGo as one example has an extension they advertise a lot. We've not heard of any such issues nor concerns from users.
From, say, a results page on mycroftproject.com the browser UI is woefully inadequate for selecting any of those results, even if that page added all the results as
<link>s in the<head>.
Mycroft project has various options, as stated above. They would have been aware of these when Chrome dropped the functionality a few years back. Unfortunately the project seems to have stalled.
It was argued that Firefox need not have this functionality because
having differing implementations across browser hurts the open internet.
That's an incomplete quote. I was responding specifically to the part about parity with Chrome.
...but by that logic, Firefox should follow all such decisions by Google because Chrome has greatest market share, despite Mozilla being for an open Internet, and Google being for a walled garden, wherein they observe every single query.
You could also turn that around and say that Chrome should follow Firefox because of the exactly same argument. The reality here is that there are standards and it was agreed several years ago that those standards would say that AddSearchProvider should do nothing. We're just catching up with that here.
The point is, it has become too difficult to add search engines, and the userland alternatives (like
%s-expanded bookmarks) are inferior to self-updating OpenSearch definitions.
We would generally encourage sites to provide their own definitions via the above options, and most do. Some sites choose not to or just haven't for whatever reason.
We are working towards improving the user options for adding Search Engines, they're still being discussed, but the expectation is that we'll have some of those out towards the end of this year.
I'm marking this as wontfix because we already have two methods for websites to create their own engines and provide them to the user, and we're not intending to add more at this time.
Description
•