Chrome Web Store Windows 10
Rapheal Charlton
When requested, a windows.Window contains an array of tabs.Tab objects. You mustdeclare the "tabs" permission in your manifest if you need access to the url,pendingUrl, title, or favIconUrl properties of tabs.Tab. For example:
For example, say an extension creates a few tabs or windows from a single HTML file, and that theHTML file contains a call to tabs.query(). The current window is the window that contains thepage that made the call, no matter what the topmost window is.
If true, the windows.Window object has a tabs property that contains a list of the tabs.Tab objects. The Tab objects only contain the url, pendingUrl, title, and favIconUrl properties if the extension's manifest file includes the "tabs" permission.
The ID of the window. Window IDs are unique within a browser session. In some circumstances a window may not be assigned an ID property; for example, when querying windows using the sessions API, in which case a session ID may be present.
The offset of the window from the left edge of the screen in pixels. In some circumstances a window may not be assigned a left property; for example, when querying closed windows from the sessions API.
A URL or array of URLs to open as tabs in the window. Fully-qualified URLs must include a scheme, e.g., ' ', not 'www.google.com'. Non-fully-qualified URLs are considered relative within the extension. Defaults to the New Tab Page.
Promises are supported in Manifest V3 and later, but callbacks are provided for backward compatibility. You cannot use both on the same function call. The promise resolves with the same type that is passed to the callback.
If true, causes the window to be displayed in a manner that draws the user's attention to the window, without changing the focused window. The effect lasts until the user changes focus to the window. This option has no effect if the window already has focus. Set to false to cancel a previous drawAttention request.
If true, brings the window to the front; cannot be combined with the state 'minimized'. If false, brings the next window in the z-order to the front; cannot be combined with the state 'fullscreen' or 'maximized'.
Fired when the currently focused window changes. Returns chrome.windows.WINDOW_ID_NONE if all Chrome windows have lost focus. Note: On some Linux window managers, WINDOW_ID_NONE is always sent immediately preceding a switch from one Chrome window to another.
Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the Apache 2.0 License. For details, see the Google Developers Site Policies. Java is a registered trademark of Oracle and/or its affiliates.
To be fair, Microsoft does not allow web browsing apps on its store unless they are using the EdgeHTML and JS engines provided by UWP, which is potentially the reason behind Google not bringing the actual Chrome browser to the Microsoft Store as it uses Chromium.
I think this kick in the nuts should be the precursor for MS to throw Windows 10 on lockdown. No more wild west Win32 installing of apps. All apps have to go though the Store. No need to get fussy about rendering engines etc., just lock down Windows 10. The time is right. Do it Microsoft!!!!
In reply to Bart:. . . Google and Apple force others to use their respective rendering engine . . .Only on phones and tablets which don't run desktop software.MSFT should absolutely impose the same type of restrictions on the thousands of Windows phones still in use.
In reply to Bart:Depends whether decades of history should count for anything. PCs have been able to run 3rd party software from anywhere since the 1970s (original Altair, then Tandys, etc). Some people who've been using PCs for decades may not appreciate MSFT locking down Windows and forcing all software to be installed from the MSFT Store.Would that also mean that new Windows Lockdown version wouldn't be able to run portable software (which doesn't require installation)? How about people developing their own EXEs? They'd have to load them into the store before running them?It may not be valuable to some, but it's valuable to others to be able to install, say, 10-year-old utilities they've come to rely upon, old games whose vendors have gone out of business so won't ever be coming to the store.I figure one of the last things MSFT would ever do is give millions of home PC users any reason to check whether Linux + Crossover (or wine) could run enough of their own Windows software that they no longer need Windows itself. Google pissing all over MSFT won't change that.
In reply to hrlngrv:I think the best approach for MS is to encourage use of store apps, and allow the use of win32 browsers only via a containerised virtualisation layer. This way, if Google want their browser to perform 'properly' and have access to system resources, then they will have to develop a version for the store. If Google wants to continue with Win32 and penalise MS, then their users will experience a performance penalty due to virtualisation. It also addresses any security concerns that MS may have which relate to third party browsers.
MS also need to lift the stupid restrictions on use of the Edge rendering engine or nobody will be interested in running the store version anyway.
In reply to BravoCharlie:MSFT is already encouraging use of Store apps.If MSFT were willing to support arbitrary desktop software in containers, where's the support for that?However, more fundamentally, MSFT has to accommodate to some extent the expectations of Windows PC users, and one huge expectation is being able to run any & every piece of desktop software those users want to use. MSFT really can't dictate to users without driving a lot of them away from Windows.
In reply to hrlngrv:I hear you, but I don't necessarily think that hanging on to the past is the right way forward. For too long IMHO MS has been trying to please everybody. This is simply a model that is unsustainable. Nor do I see a serious threat from Linux + crossover. Sure, some people on this website might know how to use it, but I for one wouldn't know where to start. Obviously I am not a reflection of society, but people want a system that is simple and 'just works'. Computing device, a central place to find apps, and run with it. Not mess about with drivers etc.Whether locking down Windows 10 now is a great idea, fair enough, I doubt it. But let MS announce that in 2 years from now all programs / apps have to go through the Store. Nothing wrong with that.
In reply to Bart:Myself, I'd be thrilled if MSFT ditched the Home SKU and sold only S and Pro, with an upgrade path from S to Pro (possibly for a one-time fee) and a downgrade path from Pro to S (for free), then be open about what its customers chose to use.Re simple and just works, a Chromebook with links to Office web apps is simple and just works (OK, as long as there's a solid network connection). For personal use, Office web apps are more than adequate for most people. Picture touch-up? Pixlr Editor works reasonably well. And Chromebooks use the latest Chrome as their browser, so rather more complete than Windows 10 S's Edge.If MSFT announced that in 2 years everything would have to go through the store, would all ISVs meekly resign themselves? Maybe, but I figure there'd be a revolt.Also, if no software could be used if it didn't come from the Store, how would Windows developers test new software? Gotta bounce it into the Store than back to the developer's PC before it could be debugged? Gotta pay extra to be able to side-load software?Finally, pure speculation, but could the wording of Visual Studio licenses get in the way? If there were any wording in VS licenses which mentioned ISVs being able freely to distribute software developed using VS to their own customers/clients, could that preclude MSFT from locking down Windows? IANAL, but I do know that contracts impose restrictions on both parties and usually prohibit either party from making material unilateral changes, e.g., MSFT changing terms so that they'd get a 30% cut of all ISVs' software sales revenues.
In reply to WP7Mango:It is. How in the world should forcing a browser engine be not anticompetitve? What Apple is doing is in no way better. That's why there are people that hate Stores because they feel that they are forced in some ways. I don't think that way personally but not allowing other rendering engines is a limitation that is a no-go for using a system like Windows 10 S with Store support only. On Android this is allowed so that Firefox is able to use its own rendering engine on that platform, too. So, it can be done.
d3342ee215