There are two separate gatekeepers in AMO and the CWS. On the other hand, OpenSearch is used for the "Add search for this field" option which just needs some metadata defined on the web page.

If they were just removing OpenSearch in xpi on AMO, that'd be fine, but the post says they intend to remove OpenSearch as a whole.

> 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.

That seems like a very narrow and reductionist view. Sure you still can create search plugins for both FF and Chrome. But that isn't the (entire) point. OpenSearch is a well-known, proven, battle-tested open standard... exactly the kind of thing we need the Open Web to be built around. And doing anything that impedes whatever momentum OpenSearch has, seems like a loss to me in a very general sense.

I lump this in with the kinds of decisions like removing RSS support from browsers, browsers (hello Chrome) not supporting MathML[1], and a zillion other "death by a thousand cuts" things that impede the Open Web.

[1]: Yes, I know that there is an initiative underway to re-add MathML support to Chrome. I'll remain somewhat skeptical until it is actually shipping and works.

No what Moz does is platform building, and it's strictly worse than the Open Web we used to have.