{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiclaphxv6cnenw7gb3xsyvleuc6uzcjvo4tsaocffx7jmxzhgpgt4",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmxj6n6qaf62"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33298&p=274862#p274862",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-29T01:31:44.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": ">   * 89 web-accessible-resource files\n>\nThere are still **A LOT** of design choices of the extension that I have to decide on, including:\n>\n>   * Is it going to be restartless, just like it was intended and how the original developer wanted it to be, or should I change it to become an overlay extension? (Restartless would obviously be a much bigger maintenance burden for me to tackle, especially since I'm also planning to open the \"Issues\" tab for the extension for everyone to keep reporting bugs. Overlay would be easier, make more sense, and support the philosophy of Pale Moon)\n>\n\n>   * Should I go with the chrome-like UI that is on Firefox and Chrome, again just like how the original developer wants it to be, or should I make it look and behave like how the current legacy UI is doing, but have more features?\n>\n\n>   * Should I keep it with the HTML files that it was originally shipped with it, or should I just port all the HTML files to XUL files, since the developer designed it with HTML for cross-developing purposes? (Although I suspect that some features cannot be replicated in XUL, including the current modern logger on uBlock Origin)\n>\n\n>   * Am I supposed to develop the extension exactly just like how the original developer is developing his extension on Firefox and Chrome, since he already has his own reputation with the extension, or am I able to diverge a bit with my own design choices and experiment with some architectural changes and basically test the limit of uBlock Origin with XPCOM's more permissive environment? If I'm able to, would it really be called uBlock Origin?!\n>\nForget the burden of the extension source code that the original developer is definitely not working alone on it in the upstream version of it, and I'll probably be the only one who'll be working on it on the UXP fork of it - Just these questions above are enough to delay the extension development for months to come.\n>\n> The extension is extremely difficult to develop, not just because of working alone on a project that was not developed by a single man, but also by the design choices that, no matter what, it'll upset some people, if taken a different approach of what they wanted. (or an approach that would be different from JustOff's, Ucyborg's, or even Gorhill's)\n>\n> I'm still not saying it's impossible to develop - I guess I'll have to increase the intake of energy drinks if I even want it to be developed in my own lifetime. [/offtopic]\n\nWell, I think overlay extensions are usually preferred in the Pale Moon ecosystem, so if that's easier for you, I think that's how you should do it for sure. And definitely I think people would prefer XUL to an HTML-style interface, but would accept either. if you can add features that showcase the power of XPCOM and what it can really do, that would be excellent, but you are right, you may well have to rebrand it because it would diverge from uBlock Origin too much.\n\nI'm starting to get the bigger thread of your question, that maybe you feel a pressure to follow upstream because of branding and expectations. But it's worth knowing that most people here don't think highly of WebExtensions and are here because they prefer what XUL and XPCOM can do, so being bound by the vision of someone who targeted WebComponents... wouldn't be ideal, though people would understand somewhat if an XUL port of a WebExtension is what they wind up with.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Add-ons • Re: Working on a Greasemonkey fork for Pale Moon",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-29T01:31:44.000Z"
}