
Mozilla Intends to Deprecate OpenSearch - zdunn
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/15/search-engine-add-ons-to-be-removed-from-addons-mozilla-org/
======
warbiscuit
That seems _really_ ass-backward, and not just because I use the search
feature a lot.

If I'm reading that right, they're deprecating support for discoverable
browser-independant markup for searches; and replacing it with the requirement
that each site actively develop (and maintain!) a software plugin for every
browser their users might want to use.

The whole point of a "user agent" was to go out and do things for me on the
web; and the idealistic goal was that each person could choose an agent suited
for _them_ , which then had tools to programmatically discover and interact
with the web in a common manner (reducing engineering load on the webdevs).

And I don't _want_ to try and use a separate search tool (with new flashing
graphics and ads!!!!) for every site I go to... I want a single search tool,
like FF offers right now. (Aside: not to mention chrome's "auto-discovery of
opensearch when you tab after typing a domain" is actually MORE useful than
FF's manual mode!).

Taking a step back and removing support for a declarative api seems to me like
the really wrong direction for an open web. Instead of sites supporting a
single declarative browser-independent markup; they now have to deal with a
long tail of (2-3 + who knows how many) browsers; and users with a niche
browser have to spend effort convincing every site to support _their_ browser.

Why not try to improve the opensearch markup instead?

~~~
warbiscuit
Followup - I'd actually been using chrome a bit more heavily; and was wanting
to use FF more, just to support open standards. One of the _main_ things I was
missing was being able to type in google docs domain, tab, and type a
document. I was planning to research how to make something similar work in FF,
and now I know how, and that they're removing it :(

~~~
myfonj
There is ancient feature of regular bookmarks to serve as "search keywords"
[1]: just give it a some keyword and use `%s` in place of URL you want to
substitute with value encoded as URI fragment (IIRC, or `%S` to be used more
verbatim). In Firefox it is directly in "New bookmark" form; in Chrome it is
dug somewhere in "Search engines" corner of settings.

For example setting keyword `t` for uri `data:text/plain,%S` and entering `t
foo` into location bar will navigate you to `data:text/plain,foo`, i.e. "make
document". If Google Docs have GET endpoint for creating documents, it should
work. For searching you can apparenly use
`[https://docs.google.com/document/?q=%s`](https://docs.google.com/document/?q=%s`).

[1] [https://www-archive.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords](https://www-
archive.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords)

~~~
vatueil
The parent comment was referring to how Chrome automatically adds search
engines. You only have to "dig into" the settings menu if you want to change
the keyword or add a custom search.

Even if you're adding it manually, I think the list of search engines is a
more intuitive place to put such a feature than "bookmark keywords".

Compared to similar features in Chrome or DDG's bangs, Firefox's bookmark
keywords seem less discoverable to me.

~~~
nine_k
While less discoverable, bookmarks with %s allow "searching", or rather URL
macro-expansion, for pages that lack search features.

~~~
vatueil
The exact same trick works with custom search engines in Chrome as well.

They're equally powerful. Automatically adding search engines means users
don't have to do so by hand, but you can still manually create a "search
engine" too (e.g. "[https://xkcd.com/%s/"](https://xkcd.com/%s/") with the
keyword "xkcd").

In Firefox I keep a folder with bookmarks that have keywords, but I would
prefer the UI in Firefox's search engine settings (the bookmark manager
doesn't have a keywords column).

The problem is few will discover Firefox's bookmark keywords unless they're
told about the feature, and manually create such bookmarks, while Chrome
automatically creates keywords for search engines and prompts users to try
them out.

~~~
myfonj
I completely agree that it's a pity such nice feature isn't known better among
wide audience and yes, Firefox bookmarks management ("Library") UI leaves much
to be desired. [2]

Just one reminder: in Firefox there is "Add a Keyword for this search..."
command on any (form) input field that triggers keyword bookmark creation
wizard [1], so what Chrome does automagically by visiting page with form (or
using the form once?) you can do quite easily in Firefox as well, but you must
find the input field, shift+f10 or click few times and pick keyword.

Also, using same keyword for different URL will (at this moment) silently
"transfer" the keyword to new URL, with no warning about

[1] yet again, this wizard obscures resulting bookmarked URL with relevant
`%s` part, so regular user cannot find out how this thing works. (I'm sad how
hard recent browsers tend to hide whole concept of URL from users, in general.
I understand it, but it's sad.)

[2] I had to `select moz_keywords.keyword, moz_places.url, moz_places.title
from moz_keywords inner join moz_places on moz_places.id ==
moz_keywords.place_id order by keyword;` last time I wanted to see all my
keywords. (And I'm trying to keep them in a single folder as well.)

~~~
m-p-3
> I completely agree that it's a pity such nice feature isn't known better
> among wide audience and yes, Firefox bookmarks management ("Library") UI
> leaves much to be desired. [2]

My main worry is that I mainly use tags to sort my bookmarks before using
folders, and even after many years they (tags) aren't showing up on mobile.
I'm afraid they'll eventually pull tags support out and become way less
useful.

Tags are IMO a better sorting system than folders.

~~~
myfonj
I've ended up using neither tags nor "topic" folders (besides few folders in
toolbar): for retrieval I rely on titles (names) and URLs alone. Every time I
bookmark something I evaluate its title and URL, look for missing terms my
future self could use, and then either reword the title or add raw "tags" in
the end. Extraordinary bookmarks I supply with several * proportionally its
extraordinarity (and make sure names contains no such sequence).

It serves me well: using native bookmarks search accelerator [1] in url bar *
, keywords and 'rating system' allows me to for example quickly pull "best
personal blogs of people writing about javascript":

    
    
        * *** javascript guru
    

I understand your worries, IIRC there used to be bookmark "description" field
that was just recently removed (I've used it maybe twice) and if tags are
globally used like this description was, your concern could be quite relevant.
If need arises, perhaps some sqlite-fu could transfer tags to titles, at
least.

[1] [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/address-bar-
autocomplet...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/address-bar-autocomplete-
firefox#w_changing-results-on-the-fly) \- this is FMPoV also quite underrated
and unknown feature.

------
abhinavsharma
This title is a little misleading. The original title of the post is "Search
Engine add-ons to be removed from addons.mozilla.org", which implies that a
special class of addons will be removed from the online store and merged with
regular extensions. Firefox has never supported OpenSearch in the same way
Chrome has, where you can type in "yout" \+ tab and search YouTube
immediately.

Opensearch engines could be added to firefox from this page:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search-
tools/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search-tools/) .This in
practice was just an extension but a different schema. They probably just want
to consolidate and maintain only one schema for all extensions.

Now, it is still truly surprising to me that it's easier to use third-party
search in Chrome than in Firefox, given all of Mozilla's talk about the Google
monopoly. In Chrome, adding a search engine is as simple as going to
chrome://settings/searchEngines and adding a string like "bing.com?q=%s" while
in Firefox the only way I can find out so far is packaging an extension and
loading it up.

~~~
lorenzhs
You can do this in firefox, too, but it's quite hidden and doesn't have a nice
UI. Bookmarks can have keywords associated with them in the bookmarks editor,
so you can add a "Bing" bookmark with URL
"[https://bing.com/?q=%s"](https://bing.com/?q=%s") and Keyword "bing". It'll
work, but the "bing" prefix won't be highlighted as it is in Chrome when using
it to do a search.

The "Add a keyword for this search" context menu option automates creation of
this bookmark, but you can also do it manually if firefox doesn't recognize a
search field or something like that

~~~
kbrosnan
You can add a keyword for known search engines in the settings as well. Double
click on the search engine keyword area, [https://support.mozilla.org/en-
US/kb/change-your-default-sea...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/change-
your-default-search-settings-firefox#w_remove-or-add-search-engines)

------
spinningslate
I'm.. at a loss. Please, if any Mozillers are on here, can you explain? I want
Mozilla to be successful as a proponent of the open web. I've said before I'd
gladly pay for it. With real, hard, proper money.

My biggest concern is the unhealthy dependence on Google. I want a successful
Mozilla precisely because I value the free web, not the contorted surveillance
monster that Google, Facebook et al seem intent on.

So in the absence of convincing rationale, I assume announcements like this to
be nefarious intervention at Google's behest. Return on that $300M
"contribution".

Please, Mozilla. Don't give in to the dark side. There is a palpable increase
in privacy awareness - you can be at the nexus of growing it, and grow
yourself accordingly. Or you can side with the Emperor. Who will crush you
once you've served your purpose.

OK, maybe that's dubiously allegorical. Here's the brutal commercial
interpretation. The _only_ way for you to reverse your declining market share
is to have a differentiator. People need a reason to use Firefox. You can
choose that path. Google isn't "supporting" you - it's adopted the "embrace,
extend, extinguish" mantra so beloved of 90s/00s era Microsoft. To be clear:
you're well into stage 3.

Seems to me you have two choices. Find a differentiator and adopt a growth
business plan for independence. Or remain at best Google's sop against anti-
competitive accusations, and be fully extinguished when you're not needed any
more.

~~~
apostacy
I have said this over and over again.

Look back at the initial success when they were up against Internet Explorer
6. They offered users what Microsoft wouldn't. They didn't hamstring
themselves with IE6 compatibility, and instead broke the rules of what a
browser was supposed to be by only considering what was best for the user, and
spurning harmful standards and technologies.

Where Microsoft hid extensions away in the registry, and their extensions had
degenerated to the point where most of them were malicious, Firefox did the
revolutionary thing of offering direct access to them by users. There's a lot
wrong with Chrome, like their draconian and invasive updater that sometimes
damages people's computers and can not be easily turned off.[1] Or how
Chrome's extensions, while safer, are also crippled and prone to abuse by
their forced updates.

Mozilla could easily leverage Google's weaknesses against them, as they did
with Microsoft. Mozilla is not a for-profit platform, they can afford to make
the things Google can not. They can have a powerful community driven extension
architecture that empowers users to do things Google never would. So of course
instead of improving and securing their old extension architecture, or
replacing it with something just as powerful, they copied Chrome again.

It may be hard to believe, but including a built in popup blocker was
revolutionary. It was called "irresponsible" by advertisers, and forced
everyone else to change. Could you ever imagine Mozilla undermining the big
players like that today? Even though bold moves like that are what got them
their success in the first place. It wasn't branding or PR or any of that
crap!

I think the only good thing they've done is containers. And containers are
such a good thing for users that I am convinced that many in Mozilla were
opposed to it and fought against it, and that it will be deprecated with a
flimsy UX metrics justification. And toadies on HN will try to justify it
because "why are you thinking about this so much? This is fine, stop
complaining, jeez."

One of the smartest things Mozilla used to do was not try to implement bad
technologies. They didn't try to re-create the quirks of the Trident engine;
they didn't let Micosoft dictate the standards, so Javascript could not eject
the CD tray, and you could not change the color of the scroll bars! They
didn't waste effort trying to copy Microsoft's Windows-first proprietary
ActiveX model. A much better compromise was the community created IETab
extension, which just ran an instance of Internet Explorer in one of the tabs
for when you needed it.[3] Could you imagine the Mozilla of today saying that
if you wanted to watch DRM'd Netflix, you should just use Chrome? Is Firefox
even technically capable of having something like Chrome tab anymore? Think of
the resources that would be freed up if they stopped trying to have feature
parity with Microsoft/Apple/Google.

They just need to have the courage to say "that technology is evil, we won't
support it. Maybe someone will make an extension to support it". Instead,
essential technologies like RSS are deprecated and left to the community to
implement, while DRM and proprietary and problematic standards are given first
class support.

Mozilla has made all of the wrong moves in the last 10 years. Their priorities
are completely misguided. And I am certain that if they just centered the user
over the big platforms, they would experience more popularity than a billion
dollars in marketing and PR.

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21064663](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21064663)

[2]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233041)

[3]: [https://support.mozilla.org/en-
US/questions/682975](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/682975)

~~~
sp332
_It may be hard to believe, but including a built in popup blocker was
revolutionary. It was called "irresponsible" by advertisers, and forced
everyone else to change. Could you ever imagine Mozilla undermining the big
players like that today?_

I mean yeah... they're doing that right now. [https://github.com/ehsan/popup-
reporter](https://github.com/ehsan/popup-reporter)

Edit: and Tracking Protection already launched
[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-
prote...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-
firefox-desktop)

~~~
apostacy
That is not at all the same as when they first did it. When they did it,
popups (that is, ads that would open a new browser window) were a staple of
online advertizing, and they disrupted it.

Google is also doing the same thing, including punishing websites that use
abusive interstitials and popups[1]. It would not be all that disruptive at
all, in fact it is actually helping Google and the big platforms by forcing
ads to be more palatable.

I doubt that any of Mozilla's underwriters have a problem with this.

Something that would be disruptive would be if Firefox bundled uBlock by
default, which Google is trying to prevent users of Chrome from using[2]. If
Google wanted to, they have the means to remove and blacklist the extension
from most users computers immediately, thanks to their updating mechanism.
They could even push changes to Chrome that break the extension or any like
it, immediately. Frankly I think the only thing that acts as a counter balance
is Firefox, but they making themselves less relevant by the day.

[1]: [https://searchengineland.com/interstitialgeddon-google-
warns...](https://searchengineland.com/interstitialgeddon-google-warns-will-
crack-intrusive-interstitials-next-january-257252)

[2]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233041)

------
zdunn
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems like Mozilla plans to remove custom
search engines from Firefox, except through WebExtensions. So you won't be
able to go to a site and easily install a search engine for it. The site
author has to build a web extension and submit it to the firefox addon site.

~~~
nicoburns
Yeah, this is crazy. Chrome's implementation of this (which allows you to type
the beginning of a website's domain and then plus tab to use that site's
search functionality) is already one of the things I miss most when I use
Firefox. They should be improving this, not removing it.

~~~
currysausage
I switched from Chrome to Firefox literally this week, and I am missing this
so badly. Can't understand why they wouldn't copy this behavior in all these
years. I hope they put it on their agenda now.

I was preparing to create my top 25 OpenSearch plugins manually (less popular
plugins at addons.mozilla.org often lack autocomplete and have other quality
issues). Glad I read this before wasting 2 hours of my life.

Now I'm just switching back to Chrome. Does Mozilla actually expect site
owners to create search extensions for ~5% Firefox users (of which in turn ~5%
will actively install such an extension)? Firefox performance has come a long
way, but Chrome is still way more polished. Apparently, Chrome is at the same
time more poweruser-friendly, which really irritates me.

~~~
lorenzhs
No need, firefox supports custom search engines, but it a) doesn't store them
automatically, you have to manually add them and b) doesn't have as nice a UI
for them as chrome does. But it works. Why it isn't implemented better is
beyond me, too. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21292283](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21292283)
for instructions.

~~~
majkinetor
Or just use plugin like Vimium that makes this feature cross browser.

------
tannhaeuser
As we're approaching the end of the decade, for posteriority we should put up
a site with 2000's and 1990's web features that we took for granted (such as
RSS, also used by OpenSearch result listings) but don't have anymore in 2010's
web of shit.

~~~
kgwxd
RSS is not dead, it's just not advertised much anymore. It's still the only
way I "subscribe" to anything.

~~~
avian
Maybe not completely dead yet, but each time any webpage gets a redesign these
days, they usually kill RSS feeds. It's more or less a niche "old web" tech
now.

------
lultimouomo
Besides the merit of the choice of deprecating OpenSearch, what kind of
timeline is that? 40 days from deprecation to removal from AMO?

------
mindcrime
Yay, another victory for Open Standards and the Open We... uh, oh wait. Never
mind. I'm just going to go crawl under a rock somewhere and cry now.

~~~
aswan
What are you crying about? Both Firefox and Chrome support a common format for
defining search engines from add-ons:

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/Web...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/chrome_settings_overrides)

[https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/settings_override](https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/settings_override)

The fact that it doesn't have "open" in its name doesn't actually make it any
less open or interoperable. This is about standardizing on having a single and
modern way to define search engines, nothing more and nothing less.

~~~
dictum
> Both Firefox and Chrome support a common format for defining search engines
> from add-ons

...which have nothing to do with the Open Web, mentioned in the parent reply.
Both require participating in, and consequently adhering to the terms of,
stores operated by third parties.

~~~
aswan
> ..which have nothing to do with the Open Web,

Which, in turn, has nothing to do with the origin article. Read it again, it
is only about how search engines are defined inside add-ons.

~~~
dictum
Per the article, "Mozilla intends to deprecate OpenSearch and eventually
remove it from Firefox".

------
Mathnerd314
So instead of h[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/OpenSearch#Open...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/OpenSearch#OpenSearch_description_file) we have
[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/Web...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/chrome_settings_overrides).

Simple enough and it seems OpenSearch will still work embedded on websites for
a while. But it's unclear how they plan to get website owners to migrate.

~~~
zdunn
> But it's unclear how they plan to get website owners to migrate.

And it's unclear why they should have to. OpenSearch is a standard that all
modern browsers currently support. Why should a site author have to support
OpenSearch for every browser and build/maintain a WebExtension just for
Firefox?

------
kevin_b_er
Looks like Mozilla may also be planning to kill the search bar. With this
change, how can anything be added to the search bar itself?

As usual, Mozilla just follows Google lead rather than innovating browser
features anymore.

How does mandated signed addons get you "offers users more controls for opting
into changes"? They offer me less controls, as someone else (AMO) controls
what I may opt into.

~~~
sp332
Search engines will be added by regular extensions. It says this in the second
paragraph and links to code examples for how to do it.

~~~
hu3
How is it desirable or even acceptable to deteriorate user and developer
experience like this?

Firefox will require users to install an extension in order to add search
engines instead of just visiting websites.

And developers will have to create extensions that barely anyone knows about
let alone bother to install.

Much worse than today's solution of including a little code in your website
and have users autodiscover your search engine:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <OpenSearchDescription
xmlns="a9...spec"> <ShortName>Website Title</ShortName> <Description>Search my
website</Description> <Url type="application/rss+xml"
template="mysite.com/search?q={searchTerms}"/> </OpenSearchDescription>

~~~
sp332
Yeah, probably. I'm just answering the first two sentences of the post I was
replying to.

------
AdmiralAsshat
Well, that blows. I know a good number of the search engines I use have
shortcuts in DuckDuckGo, but I felt pretty clever when I discovered I could
configure Firefox to search Wikipedia/Amazon/IMDB _directly_ rather than going
through DDG intermediary. It also avoided clogging my address bar suggestions
with:

[https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipe...](https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecial%3ASearch%3Fsearch%3Dtrueos%26go%3DGo)

etc.

------
maverick74
Link to the discussion:

[https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/deprecation-of-opensearch-
xm...](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/deprecation-of-opensearch-xml-add-ons-
current-users/46868)

------
sorenjan
Does this mean that they're also removing the search field?

Do I have to create an extension and sign it for every site I want to search
on that doesn't have an extension on their own?

~~~
kevin_b_er
Looks like it. You must now have approval from AMO to have a entry in the
search field.

------
m31415
This is nuts. Mozilla should at least allow the user to set a custom search
engine using an about:config option, like the old keyword.URL [1] option,
which was removed after Firefox 23. I use DuckDuckGo with several
customizations as POST parameters and it would be very cumbersome if I have to
write an extension to use DDG the way I want it.

[1]
[http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.url](http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.url)

------
carapace
Mozilla is basically the fig leaf covering Google's hegemony, they get all
their money from Google, they use Google to track Firefox users (
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753546](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753546)
).

------
maverick74
[https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/deprecation-of-opensearch-
xm...](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/deprecation-of-opensearch-xml-add-ons-
current-users/46868)

------
maverick74
Link to Discussion:

[https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/deprecation-of-opensearch-
xm...](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/deprecation-of-opensearch-xml-add-ons-
current-users/)

------
maverick74
Yeap, Firefox is shooting themselves in the foot on this one, if you ask me!

~~~
Kaiyou
I'm pretty sure it's intentional at this point. You don't go shooting yourself
in the foot, reload and do it again consistently for years without intent.

~~~
maverick74
hum...

You know, looking more carefully over the question i came to the conclusion
that you're probably right!!!

They're probably wishing a hammer this xmas to hammer themselves over and over
and over...

just for the fun of it...

------
citrusx
I wonder if it's possible to write one extension using WebExtensions, which
does a better job supporting OpenSearch? I know that WebExtensions is limited,
but all one would need to do is read the OpenSearch data, store it somewhere
for later recall, and open up some path in the ui to search on a site that we
stored the info for. And, of course, launch a tab with the results in it.

Sounds like a nice little side project.

------
nine_k
Dear mods, the current title is incorrect and misleading.

Please restore the title as the linked page has it: "Search Engine add-ons to
be removed from addons.mozilla.org".

~~~
rhencke
In what way is it incorrect or misleading?

The first paragraph of the article states "Mozilla intends to deprecate
OpenSearch and eventually remove it from Firefox."

------
mfer
I hope this is as easy as someone writing an extension that restores the
functionality. Maybe this can spur some innovation for Firefox users via
extensions.

~~~
sorenjan
Extensions can add address bar suggestions, but not a new search bar. It's
unclear if Mozilla intends to remove that as well, I haven't seen any
webextensions that add a search provider to it.

There are several extensions that use userscripts, like Greasemonkey and
Tampermoney, so loading the search manifest files shouldn't be a problem.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/Web...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/WebExtensions/user_interface)

------
Endy
Well, this is a great reason for Firefox users to remove the Google search
engine from their browser and use DuckDuckGo. Better results and the bang
syntax!

