<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/13/2019 5:09 AM, Mihovil Stanić
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:aa6d8ae1-1477-6751-7417-8634c36be1ac@miho.im">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">13.03.2019 u 9:56, Matt Harris je
napisao/la:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:dd7a8508-1c45-43f3-06fc-560ff7e6486e@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<i><br>
Do we really want folks searching add-ons in a browser? while
it might be good for Firefox where the browser is the
destination, we really don't want to show them the add-ons
that only work for V2 of the product and will not install in
their version. That is just poor public relations. Add-on
perhaps should be a "feature" and describe hot to locate/
search them in the product, not a menu item at all.<br>
<br>
Matt</i><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, "we" really do want to search add-ons in a browser. It's
easier, faster, you can open multiple tabs, compare add-ons etc.<br>
Thunderbird should discourage web surfing inside mail client, not
promote it. A lot of security risks are connected to that part of
TB and in the end, it's not Thunderbird goal to be web browser.<br>
</blockquote>
<p>The fact that Thunderbird is based on Firefox's core doesn't mean
it is by default susceptible to ALL of the Firefox's
vulnerabilities. So AFAIK your comment about browsing is largely
irrelevant - unless the user has enabled thunderbrowse or changed
the settings which reduce the default security of Thunderbird. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:aa6d8ae1-1477-6751-7417-8634c36be1ac@miho.im"> Just came
to my mind when I was writing this reply, if TB ever decides to
implement Firefox Sync, for any reason, it can be upgraded with
"Send add-on to Thunderbird" option, just like you can send app
from Google Play website to your mobile phone for installation.</blockquote>
<p>I think Matt's main point is that for the vast majority of users
(which does not include power users), the web version of AMO
causes real problems, and it is far preferable that they use the
in-product interface to AMO. That of course requires that there
is great functionality in the interface.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>