And images? Most people are too naive to understand that the <img> tag represents an HTTP GET for every occurrence. Being able to lock down GETS and limit them is a safety measure, not a bug. Just because users are naive, and that such naivety is encouraged by greedy parties, does not mean that the feature should not exist.
Certificate Authorities? SSL? Destroying the ability to control your cache?
Alex Limi should take note that the browser exists for the user, not the faceless "product" locked away in remote internet server land. Not all websites are "product" designed with the intent to extract cash from people's pockets. The browser is the last gateway of control a user has over what the internet is allowed to do to their machines. Taking these settings away represents a set of handcuffs.
Is it not clear that JavaScript can be used as a weapon against the user, to obfuscate, and limit the user's understanding of the actual behavior of any given HTML document?
Privacy Engineer Monica Chew should take note that people will fork or abandon their open-source browser if it doesn't represent their interests. People with the technical awareness to know better will advise people to avoid Firefox, if decisions like this are on the horizon.
Blame people like Alex Limi and Monica Chew if Firefox becomes the next Internet Explorer.
Design-by-committee indeed. Design by Steve Ballmer is one possible alternative, is it not? Does that sound better? I think we know what authoritarian decision making can look like.
Wow! No respect for this troll-bait article under any circumstances. I don't care what their pedigrees are.