<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Century Gothic">Hi,<br>
<br>
My message, here sent on this mailing-list, is the explanation of
the Bug 1249151 i reported a few days ago.<br>
<br>
As a daily user of FF, i was so shocked by the bug, that i
reported it as a bug. I would not realize then that i had to write
a message on a development team to request for a core-feature
back, as a daily user of FF since quite 15 years from now.<br>
<br>
I have a high respect for the development, and conception teams of
Firefox. I would like, as i have the opportunity to speak to you,
to thanks a lot for this product. The introduction of multi-tabs
feature, then the loading of the only opened tabs, the pined tabs,
the backup of bookmarks&..., the customized themes, the
add-ons, the webdev-view to debug our websites, and indeed the
engine, highly robust, with the best on-the-market respect of W3C
specifications, state-of-the-art features, mobile, so many great
features... and privacy !!<br>
<br>
<br>
So, the removal of the feature "User Handling site-by-site cookies
policy" is really shocking.<br>
<br>
Why ?<br>
<br>
- this feature is discrete as it is optional, and unselected by
default since many releases.<br>
<br>
-> the quicky user is not bothered at all<br>
-> the user who cares about it, can toggle it.<br>
<br>
- the add-ons like ghostery, ad-block, and stuff like this are
third-parties, and consequently are complementary, not replacement
ones.<br>
<br>
-> users are using privacy add-ons, AND FIRSTLY, the
feature "User handling site-by-site cookies policy".<br>
<br>
- there is no feature that can replace it, so if i may make a
comparison:<br>
<br>
If you take your car to the repair for a daily routine, and
when you take it back, the steering wheel is missing. What would
you think about the repair's man telling you he cannot answer, not
at his maintenance office cause it is not a mistake but the
resolution of a bug, so </font><font face="Century Gothic"><font
face="Century Gothic">you put back by yourself the wheel, and </font>after
some days in the fog, you have to go to the R&D department of
the manufacturer car in the headquarters in DC, and there in the
library at the entrance you read that Ford is removing the wheels,
because user may take the google car addon to drive automatically.<br>
Wawwww... and yes this is exactly our case here.<br>
<br>
- features responds to needs, and someones are constants. So, even
if ARPANET/CompuserveAOL/www... is 30 years now or more, the need
of a browser is constant, still. But the technology evolves. As
reminder, when websites were created, user interaction requested
client-side or server-side objects or both, but the cookies on
client-side were preferred because of the slow and delayed
connections disadvantages server-side, and simplicity and access
to the technology for webdev beginners. So we should keep history
in mind. Because, this old habit now with high-speed connections
should put cookies to the paper-basket, and let server-side rules.
As common sense, user may tolerate cookies for old-authentications
and old-school or beginners sites. So, marketers, publicists that
unfiltered and more and more this technology, with extended usage
cookies, and user privacy, should make it with the agreement of
the user. And the need of an agreement of the user is valid today,
as it was 20 years ago.<br>
<br>
-> you cannot remove a feature, arguing that the feature is
old. The point for the user is not there. The needs is there, as
it was 20 y. ago, and even more pregnant now.<br>
<br>
<br>
- So as in a project plan, if you change a software, or a module,
you need to be ISO-functional.<br>
i.e. if you remove a feature, you need to provide a feature that
ensure the same functionalities. (Non Regression)<br>
<br>
About the project planning of FF, i am concerned that you removed
a feature w/o providing another new feature that provides
ISO-functionality.<br>
<br>
<br>
That you would like to make something brand new, better, for
instance with "name-by-name within site-by-site user handling
cookies policy", "timers to automate deletion of cookies" (daily
or user defined), "handling flash cookies", that integrates
seamlessly within user experience is great. Yes. Think about it,
do it, test it, and provide it in bêta, etc...<br>
<br>
-> but indeed: BEFORE removing the current feature
(qualified as "old").<br>
<br>
That seems so obvious, that i am staying shocked with release
44.0.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So, my request, here, is for you to put back the old feature asap
(also for security reason) and let users know about it, please.<br>
<br>
And, propose a new optional interface allowing the user to handle
cookies policy site-by-site (and subsequently name by name) in
bêta, or in accordance to FF development scheme, and when this one
will be fully operational and released in the main branch, to
remove the feature that you consider as old.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you very much again for your hard work, and for all that
was, is, and will be accomplished within this superb software that
is Firefox. And i hope you will hear the little voices.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
kokoro<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>