
Firefox: Announcing Project Mortar - lmedinas
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.planning/j834iDIG3yY/V84Rzw0cEAAJ
======
hannob
This sounds very strange to me. Many people are pretty excited that Mozilla is
doing this Rust thing and trying to move the rendering engine to a safer
language. And now they start a project that:

a) wants to keep flash alive longer.

b) wants to replace their javascript (aka already memsafe) PDF renderer with a
C++ one.

I mean I get that pdf.js is not perfect. It had some bad security vulns in the
past. But pdfium also has a pretty bad wrap when it comes to vulns (I got
plenty of bounties for it myself). But more than that: It's moving from a
memsafe language back to C++. That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. If
anything they should move their PDF renderer to Rust.

And Flash... please just let it die in peace and don't put any more effort
into supporting it.

~~~
digi_owl
I fear that Mozilla is going the way of Opera.

They can't keep up with the juggernauts with full time staff (Google, MS,
Apple) so they are caving in and slowly going "me too".

~~~
alphapapa
Don't they pull in several hundred million dollars a year? Shouldn't they be
able to hire enough staff to develop Firefox with that money?

~~~
Sylos
Well, Google, Microsoft and Apple pull in several billion per year...

And in 2014, Mozilla had expenses of 212 million for software development, so
they definitely do invest most of their budget there.

[https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-
US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Fi...](https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-
US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Financials_2014.pdf)

~~~
alphapapa
> Well, Google, Microsoft and Apple pull in several billion per year...

Yes, but Mozilla doesn't also maintain the world's largest search engine, sell
an operating system and office suite and gaming systems, or make computers,
laptops, tablets, phones, and develop chips to run them on.

All Mozilla does is make software. And they only have one primary product. If
_x_ hundred million dollars per year is not enough for them to do that, I
don't think the problem is that they don't have enough money.

------
wodenokoto
I think this is bad news. I really like that pdf's in firefox is just another
webpage. This means that all my plugins and other HTML-shenanigans can be used
on pdf's.

This also appears to be a step away from Mozillas strategy of web-technologies
everywhere.

~~~
scrollaway
Oh jesus christ. The entire ML thread is bad news.

Why on _earth_ would they move away from PDF.js (which is a _fantastic_
project) and then use that move to justify Mortar?

Also, I just learned this from the thread: Why the fuck would they kill
Shumway? I'm all for killing Flash, but Shumway is an important tool not just
for migration, it's also _really important_ for archival.

God damn it Mozilla. I've talked about this before, too: Hearing Mozilla
executives, each Mozfest, talk about commitment to the free web. Commitment to
open technologies. What commitment, exactly?

In a handful of years, Mozilla has managed to severely damage its poster child
web browser's reputation by including then subsequently dropping drm, by
including then subsequently dropping Hello (a good initiative with a horrible
user experience), by completely screwing up the launch of Pocket (which they
could only have done by _massively_ misunderstanding their userbase).

In that same handful of years, Mozilla took some good initiatives, such as
Persona and Firefox OS, completely botched marketing and experience on both,
severely underestimated the required efforts on the latter, then dropped both
projects.

In that same handful of years, Mozilla dropped support for its _second_ poster
child, Thunderbird, arguably the last decent FOSS email client.

It all screams mismanagement and I haven't even talked about half of the
problems. I've been upset about all this for some time but now writing it all
out I'm starting to wonder of Mozilla isn't just in a free fall.

PS: I 100% understand the concerns and difficulties of allocating development
time but this is a pattern I keep seeing with Mozilla: Spin up a project, get
it to 80%, give up. You could build a castle with the amount of efforts wasted
on projects either doomed from the beginning (FxOs), or dropped near the
finish line. This is all absurd.

~~~
fdej
Anecdotally, PDF.js is slow compared to native viewers and often renders
documents incorrectly. And the project is five years old now. It's not bad as
a fallback, but considering how important PDF files are, looking for a better
solution makes sense.

~~~
bluedino
While convienent, I can't see how anyone would want to use a browser-based PDF
viewer over a native one.

~~~
cptskippy
I got tired of constantly updating due to vulnerabilities. I haven't had a PDF
viewer installed for years, I have PDFs open in Firefox.

I got tired of having Adobe Updater constantly running in the background (why
not a scheduled task run periodically like Google Updater?!) and the need to
update/reboot my PC regularly when a new version of Acrobat came out.

I switched PDF viewers briefly but ended in the same update cycles I was in
with Adobe.

PDF.js isn't perfect but I've yet to come across a PDF that it couldn't open
for me. I use it mainly to view things like insurance bills or other random
documents where pixel perfect rendering is irrelevant.

~~~
Certhas
As a scientist, pdf.js is simply not capable enough for any serious work with
pdf.

I would love to do as you say, and read pdfs in the browser only. From what I
have learned in the context of this discussion, switching away from pdf.js
will contribute to enabling that.

~~~
chrismonsanto
> As a scientist, pdf.js is simply not capable enough for any serious work
> with pdf.

As a counterpoint, I regularly read (CS) research papers in pdf.js and have
never had any trouble. One of the reasons I stuck with Firefox is the superior
Zotero integration.

~~~
Certhas
Hmmm... pure math papers are often fine but I used to still see misformatted
math relatively frequently, maybe I should give it another try.

------
oridecon
[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mortar_Project](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mortar_Project)

> The core of the Windows sandbox is Google's chromium sandbox.

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox#Windows_2](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox#Windows_2)

Any more components that are coming directly from Chromium?

This is an interesting move if it allows Mozilla to focus on Servo and the new
Rust components. At least I hope that's what they are doing, after the recent
Firefox OS news.

~~~
the8472
The IPC mechanism used for electrolysis was adapted from chrome

------
acemarke
As an outside observer and Firefox user, this seems ridiculous and I don't
understand the thought process at all. PDF.js works as far as I've seen, and
my understanding was it was pure web technologies. How does Flash fit into
this? Why is dropping PDF.js suddenly a priority?

~~~
azakai
PDF.js worked in my experience too, but it's the usual problem with a
massively complex format like PDFs - getting 80% or 90% is feasible, and
PDF.js does that great, but getting to 100% - things like forms, etc. - is
very, very hard.

It's easier to just use an existing PDF renderer like PDFium that already has
the 100%.

The Flash thing is separate. Flash is sadly still necessary on the web - most
people won't use a browser without Flash, except on mobile. And the pepper
version of Flash is more stable than the other.

Where the two connect is that if you support enough pepper for pepper-Flash,
then you also have the option to use that pepper support to run PDFium.

~~~
izacus
Plus, pdfium is actively updated, patched and maintained by Google.

------
cddotdotslash
This post has the tone of an organization gasping for relevance: the constant
references to cost cutting, focusing on a core component, etc.

~~~
creshal
If only they could finally decide what this mystical core component is and
stick with it.

------
jasonkostempski
Why not just drop Flash and PDF support? Flash is dead and PDFs never needed
to be rendered in browsers in the first place, they can already be opened
through free, cross-platform, open source programs with all the features on
the goal list.

~~~
tdb7893
As a counterpoint I love pdf support in the browser. People post pdf versions
of most documents, papers, and presentations and viewing them in the browser
makes the overall experience so much better! I actually have chrome as my
default pdf viewer because it starts up faster than most other pdf viewers and
I'm more used to it.

~~~
derefr
I've never understood why you even needed a browser plugin to do this. Why
can't the browser just spawn a PDF viewer-app's COM server or equivalent, and
then hand it a rendering context and send UI events back and forth—all without
even knowing what exactly the filetype it's embedding is?

Which is to say, whatever happened to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding)
?

~~~
bla2
Turns out most programs aren't hardened enough to be exposed to random files
from the internet.

~~~
mindslight
How many PDFs _don 't_ qualify as "random files from the Internet" ?

~~~
krylon
The ones you create yourself, I guess. ;-)

------
nachtigall
How many people are working on PDF.js that are paid by Mozilla?
[https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/graphs/contributors](https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/graphs/contributors)
looks like there are only 2 main contributors (i.e. maintainers, in the sense
of continuously and ongoing committing for longer time)

~~~
brendandahl
Yury and I are the only paid staff that work very occasionally on PDF.js. We
both have not been full time on the project for quite awhile. We do have a
pretty active community and quite a few outside companies using PDF.js though.

~~~
nachtigall
Thanks. Your answer and your work even more so are very much appreciated! I
hope you can keep it up. Maybe some of the other companies could also jump in
with as financier (though I do not have too high hopes for this as taking is
more common than giving...)

~~~
derefr
Seems like the Internet Archive would be the most likely org to care: a
Javascript renderer for PDFs lines up with their "preservation and easy
display through in-browser emulation" philosophy.

------
mrottenkolber
When I click a non HTML link, FF asks me what to do, I select open and it
opens the PDF with mupdf. I get that on windows you don’t want require people
to download Acrobat reader, but why not just bundle FF with a good PDF reader
on Windows? There must be open source projects doing PDF on Windows?

The last ESR of Firefox was reasonably fast, since I updated to 45 everything
is sluggish. The upside is that some HTML5 audio features work better now, the
downside is that the Youtube video player is so inefficient I needed to
install a plugin that disables it (the fan is roaring).

Many years ago I installed a native Mplayer plugin for Firefox, and I could
watch videos on the web. It was a 800Mhz CPU, and a 32MB Radeon graphics card?
I could play videos without touching the CPU?

Right now I am typing a HN comment and FF sits at 100% for whatever reason...

My point is, everything implemented in a browser that is not a HTML/CSS
renderer or JS JIT compiler, seems to suck to the point of being useless.

As much as I would like to get rid of the Flashplayer plugin, its the most
reasonable way to play video in FF. Less of a CPU hog, less crashes. How did
we get into this mess?

~~~
cpeterso
> why not just bundle FF with a good PDF reader on Windows? There must be open
> source projects doing PDF on Windows?

That's the plan: PDFium is an open-source PDF reader.

~~~
nachtigall
Same argument why Opera chose to base their browser on Blink. PDFium is 100%
dependent on Google. I do not think it's a clever move to go down into this
dependency.

Sure web > pdf > flash in terms of mozilla's focus, but I fear pdf will be
part of the web for a long time to come.

------
kinkdr
If Mozilla wants to lower their engineering costs, wouldn't it make sense to
start cutting back on projects like Rust?

Don't get me wrong, Rust is an amazing project and I am happy it exists and
grateful for their work on it, but if I had to choose between Rust and
Firefox, for the shake of internet and freedom I would choose Firefox.

I guess a PDF viewer or just another implementation of Flash is not sexy,
interesting work, but IMHO is more aligned with the mission of Mozilla.

~~~
nachtigall
Investing in Rust is the best Mozilla can do for the long-term prospects of
Firefox. The safety and speed of a modern language like Rust could be a real
game changer when it comes to the competition with Chrome.

~~~
kinkdr
OK, I chose Rust just as an example. We can pick another one, something more
obvious like Firefox OS.

~~~
creshal
It was already shut down. Years after they should have – actually it should
never have been started in the first place –, but they finally did pull the
plug.

~~~
kinkdr
OK. That was the point that I was trying, and miserably failing, to make. That
they should cut resources from all the other, non-core projects, before
cutting from Firefox.

------
LaSombra
I would love to see Chrome/Chromium adopting PDF.js, from Mozilla.

~~~
rcthompson
I haven't used Chrome in a while, but I seem to remember being able to use
pdf.js in Chrome by installing an extension.

~~~
yohui
Yes, it is available as an extension:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pdf-
viewer/oemmndc...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pdf-
viewer/oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm)

~~~
rhelmer
I managed to get this working as a WebExtension in Firefox (mostly just
hacking around a few APIs that aren't ready in Firefox yet). Could be a path
forward for folks that want to keep using pdf.js perhaps.

------
simonw
Google Groups is such a lousy product these days. It uses stupid shebang-URLs,
it requires you to sign in to view anything... but in signing in it forgets
which URL you were trying to visit and dumps you back on the homepage.

It's a pretty good case study in why rebuilding your product entirely in
JavaScript isn't necessarily a good idea.

~~~
nol13
Cached version of this anywhere for those who would rather not sign in to
google?

------
amluto
Erk. In my experience, even ignoring issues of JavaScript vs unsafe languages,
PDF.js provides a much better experience. I'd like to see Google switch to
PDF.js, not vice versa.

------
bitmapbrother
Translation - Firefox wants to "leverage" some Chromium source code to reduce
their workload.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
If that means that they get to focus more effort on improving Firefox's now
aging renderer, and continue to improve their JS engine, I'm all for it.

~~~
bitmapbrother
I wonder how long it is before they adopt Blink. So they can focus on more
important things, of course.

~~~
theandrewbailey
I doubt that they would, because that would make a less diverse web, and take
us back to about 2004 or so.

~~~
wott
Which would be a very good thing, for we might witness the raise of a fresh
new Mozilla and a new Firefox kicking ass, instead of watching year after year
the decay of the current ones.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
...Do you really think that would happen?

You give the world too much credit. If firefox jumped to blink, we'd just
shrug our shoulders. A few of the hardcore would move to IceWeasel or
PaleMoon, but the majority of people, even developers, might shake their heads
a bit, but wouldn't really care all that much.

------
caiob
I know nearly nothing about browser development, but I'm curious to learn as
to why Mozilla spends so much time on a PDF renderer?

~~~
wodenokoto
The PDF.js projects have 2 major scopes:

Give Firefox and the broader web a cross-platform, free, opensource PDF-
renderer (you can use it to embed PDF in webpages)

Give Mozilla real-world experience with bottle-necks in their PDF-renderer.

~~~
Karunamon
Given Mozilla's recent banging on about "core products" and "cost cutting",
I'm a bit amazed that a PDF renderer isn't considered out of scope. It seems
like another tacked-on feature (with necessarily inclusive bugs, security
holes, etc) to the browser that is better handled by external applications
that everyone already has.

~~~
jamesgeck0
It is considered out of scope. That's why they're looking at embedding a 3rd
party PDF renderer.

~~~
Karunamon
Which is a fine pithy answer, but does nothing to address the concerns about
maintainability, bugs, etc.

Any modern system can read PDFs. Why does it need to be in the browser,
instead of handed off to the app of the user's choosing?

~~~
petecox
That's a good question; I'm in the 'external' camp. But other browsers such as
Edge and Chrome have built-in support, so there's a percentage of Mozilla
management and user base that would regard a browser as feature incomplete if
it didn't have it.

At least, once the scaffolding is done, they can hand off development to the
Chrome team and thence focus on the core browser issues of implementing HTML
5.x

------
Waterluvian
Maybe I'm living under a rock and am asking the obvious: is Mozilla just
massively downsizing their expenditures because they're suffering badly?

------
SwellJoe
I wish more of the world considered PDF and Flash to be obsolete/deprecated
technologies. The amount of energy wasted on these rotten old techs is such a
shame.

That said, if someone has to do it, I felt better about PDF.js than I feel
about the Chrome implementation, for a few reasons. Higher level language
means less surface area for vulnerabilities (though I guess it's never been
perfect, either). Being a huge and complex project in JavaScript means it
works the JS engine and renderer in the browser pretty hard and can provide a
great test suite for the browser itself. Being JavaScript also means
improvements in the VM (whether performance or security) automatically improve
the PDF renderer (though I guess PDFium is quite a bit faster already, so
that's less of a benefit on the PDF.js side).

Honestly, though, these are dead technologies, to me. I use them only when
absolutely _necessary_. I don't have Flash installed on any of my machines and
have no intention to do so. I do have to look at PDFs now and then, but I
don't like it. I'm tired of people slapping the paper skeuomorph onto web
pages. Web pages are _better than paper_ , in every dimension, so stop
imitating paper! Having to load up a buggy, quirky, weird-looking, plugin to
view the damned thing is just adding insult to injury.

So...let'em die. But, I guess if Mozilla feels like they need to keep
providing it for now, I'm fine with them doing whatever they have to do to
make it cost as little as possible. Mozilla has wasted enough money over the
years on weird projects; I guess supporting Flash and PDF count as another
one. (Even though I like PDF.js a lot, for making PDF less of an asshole.)

~~~
MildlySerious
Honest question, if PDF is obsolete, what technology/format was it made
obsolete by that is not dependent on the cloud like Google Docs? What
lightweight format is there that I can export my .doc's to that I can send to
my clients?

~~~
SwellJoe
We're speaking completely different languages here, I'm afraid. I don't "send
.docs to my clients". I haven't opened Word in a decade or more. I
occasionally share a Google Doc with people I'm working with, but only for the
collaboration features, not because I want them to see what a nice font I
selected for the headers.

I recently removed PDF export of invoices from my company shopping cart, and
converted it to use an HTML document instead; I spent a couple of days of my
labor _removing_ PDF functionality. Same style sheet, looks the same when
printed, provides the same information, but no external tools needed. PDF is
an anti-pattern, and if I'm working with someone and they send me a PDF I
instantly like them less (except in the very rare circumstance that it's
necessary to print the thing, like signing documents, though even that can be
mostly automated away with tech).

So, I'll answer your question with my own: What are you sending your clients
in PDF? Why? Why isn't it online yet? Why are you manually creating these
docs, whatever they are, and emailing them to someone? I switched payment
providers because my last one mailed me a PDF form, and asked me to sign and
send it back. I said "no thanks", and signed up with someone who lives in this
century.

There's very little that people do with PDF that can't be done better some
other way.

~~~
mindslight
> _What are you sending your clients in PDF? Why? Why isn 't it online yet?_

What do you mean by "online"? Obviously PDFs can be online. Are you implying
some clunky proprietary webapp that must allow me to share something?

Let's say some project is going to post a schematic and I'd like to read it.
I'd much rather grab that in a PDF than the native format of whatever CAD
program they used to capture it (although obviously the latter is necessary
for editing). You're either saying that CAD programs should print-to-file as
vector-perfect HTML (why?), or that local programs should be deprecated?

To me, PDF is just a nicer page-precise layout compared to PS. And for many
locally-saved documents, I'd rather not even involve my web browser - just a
simple evince <file>.

Is the PDF support on nonfree platforms really that bad that it's created such
hate for the whole format? It sounds like that failing is better attributed to
the operating system itself.

~~~
SwellJoe
_" Obviously PDFs can be online. Are you implying some clunky proprietary
webapp that must allow me to share something?"_

No, I'm suggesting that the web is an open standard, available to more people
than any computing platform in history, that can do everything PDF can do, and
incomparably more. If there are workflows that rely on PDF, the workflow is
probably wrong, and could be improved by a web standards based implementation.

Passing around files is the least common denominator, the stop-gap solution
until something good comes along, it's not the optimal solution where we
decide, "OK, that's perfect! Let's keep doing it this way for 20 years."

 _" You're either saying that CAD programs should print-to-file as vector-
perfect HTML (why?), or that local programs should be deprecated?"_

I'm saying neither. That's why we have SVG. All browsers render it. It is a
powerful and pretty well-designed and well-defined vector-based image format
that has _universal_ availability across nearly any device. PDF may be
powerful but it is not particularly well-designed or particularly well-defined
(as evidenced by the lack of good non-Adobe implementations, and as evidenced
by how many elements of the PDF format have had to be riddled out by
experimentation, rather than merely following a spec).

 _" Is the PDF support on nonfree platforms really that bad that it's created
such hate for the whole format? It sounds like that failing is better
attributed to the operating system itself."_

I don't know what you're asking here. I primarily use Linux and have for 20+
years. PDF support on free platforms is historically worse than on Mac or
Windows, though it's kinda clunky on _every_ OS.

PDF served its purpose, and was good for its time and place (I recall with
great excitement when OpenOffice first got PDF export that worked, and it was
the feature that convinced a number of people I knew at the time to switch
from MS Office, which didn't yet have PDF export without additional software).
It's just done, now, and it's a good time to move on.

~~~
einr
Your comments look a lot more like someone on a personal vendetta against PDF,
for whatever reason, than an argument grounded in reality. There are people
whose usecases are entirely different from yours, who do not want PDF to die
because it is immensely useful.

I work in printing and graphic design, and PDF is irreplacable. It's literally
the only dependable vector graphics interchange format that exists. Would you
have us going back to passing around zip files of PageMaker documents?

SVG is a laughable train wreck for any use where it's imperative that files
look the same across devices, media and apps. I've yet to encounter a non-
trivial SVG file that renders exactly the same across, say, Chrome/FF/IE or
Illustrator/CorelDRAW/Inkscape. I don't know whether the format is trash or
all implementations are, but the end user experience is awful either way.

Now, none of this means it's a good idea to throw random PDF files at the web
when HTML would have worked as well or better. If your argument would have
stopped at that I would have agreed with you.

~~~
SwellJoe
That's all fine. I don't care about that environment or use case; it's not
harming anyone. I'm talking about PDF being considered an important part of
web browsers. That's what I think should end.

I was unaware of the issues you bring up about SVG; it's not a problem I've
seen in a while (though I remember it being an issue many years ago going back
and forth between Inkscape and Illustrator, and of course browsers had awful
SVG support for a long while). But, professionals in specialist industries can
use whatever tools they like, without making the rest of the world carry
around that baggage. So, carry on using PDF for this purpose, just don't ask
every browser to support it. It shouldn't be a part of the web anymore, even
if PDF still has a place in pre-press, or something.

------
wsha
Hmmm, after Australis changed the UI, e10s has begun to enlarge the memory
footprint, XUL was ditched for Chrome extensions, and support for encrypted
media extensions was added, I didn't think Firefox had much left that it could
do to become more like Chrome, but I guess Mozilla is going to keep surprising
us.

------
WhitneyLand
Who made this decision?

Does anyone outside Mozilla think this is a great decision?

I'm asking in good faith - just not sure how they came to this direction, and
unable to see how it's in their best interest.

------
vamur
Strange decision. If the goal is to save resources, then the effective
solution would be to remove support for NPAPI plugins and move PDF.js to an
addon. Especially as there are plenty of excellent PDF viewers on all
platforms and Flash is dead for most people.

Otherwise, Mozilla will still be spending resources integrating pdfium and
Pepper Flash codebase and debugging bugs related to their usage.

------
_Codemonkeyism
I understand they want to remove duplication.

On the other hand they've got over a billion (!) of dollar over the years,
created dozens of projects that had nothing to do with the browser, develop
their own language and now want to cut costs on Firefox.

------
revelation
Man, is there a browser vendor out there that can withstand the market
pressure and doesn't have the fuck you money to constantly reinvent the same
thing over and over again, badly?

Every in browser PDF renderer seems to start with the same "we don't like
plugins" mindset, they implement the basic stuff in a frenzy.. and then leave
it broken without support for important, real world features.

Chrome doesn't do annotations, need not talk about PDF.js..

PDF used to be a pretty reliable compatibility format, if read only, and
browsers are single-handedly trying to ruin it. It's like they are jealous.

------
piotrjurkiewicz
First good move of Mozilla since many years. PDF.js is a nightmare.

------
garaetjjte
Why they want to drop NPAPI?

~~~
petecox
Because it's too much effort to port to Servo and they'd rather piggyback on
Chrome's plugin efforts?

~~~
dblohm7
No, it is because NPAPI is a stability and performance nightmare. No sane
person in 2016 would want to port it to Servo or anything else.

------
mmmeff
Desktop URL:
[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.planning/j...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.planning/j834iDIG3yY/V84Rzw0cEAAJ)

------
BuckRogers
But they managed to run out Brendan Eich, good work eh? Really on a roll.

I've been using FF since it was in beta as Phoenix and never stopped using it.
I would have to agree with you. I don't share all of Eich's politics in
general but I also don't care about Eich's politics (I'm an adult). Mozilla
chose politics over tech. I think the only path to redemption for Mozilla is
to bring back Eich with a full apology and give him total control. Let him
clean out some of these clowns. That won't happen, they're probably done.

~~~
sctb
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12614692](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12614692)
and marked it off-topic.

------
j-pb
I can't wait for the day Firefox usage drops below the threshold where we can
stop supporting it. It's becoming the new IE in terms of quality and whining
when it comes to implementing features other browsers delivered ages ago.

This is just another nail in its quality koffin.

