Reviews for Print Edit WE
Print Edit WE by DW-dev
Review by oldFox
Rated 3 out of 5
by oldFox, 7 years agoThe 'old' Print-Edit was for me one of the most useful and accomplished FF add-ons. Given the reviews here I have NOT (so ignore the 3 stars - just entered as a neutral rating because field is required) tried the WE version because it is obvious it has some significant problems but it is also equally obvious these problems stem not from the add-on developer but from FF itself, as the FF developers increasingly lock down FF into a sort of paranoid uber secure - well, what? FF used to be all about the ability to customize it to one's liking but that ability is all but gone. I'm seriously thinking about what other browser to use (WIndows) but the field is limited and unattractive: Chrome (bloatware), IE (thanks but no thanks), etc.
Which leaves FF. So isn't the thing that we should be berating FF for its regressive changes rather than having a go at Print Edit's developer, who is doing his best under trying circumstances not of his own making?
Oh, and by the way, any FF supporters out there who say the current FF is better and/or why would I not want a more secure FF: the answer is I want adequate security, not Fort Knox.
Edit: DW-dev: thanks for your response. Seems I can't add a response under yours so mine will have to go here, as an edit. The three stars remain because, as I said, the FFFs (roll your own on what the third F stands for) require an assessment so I went for average/neutral.
My 'review' was more about WE = less functionality and flexibility and applies particularly to valuable but complex add-ons like yours, hence saying it here.
A bit of background: I was trying to edit your code to see if I could get the Save PDF button to send the edited html stream to wkhtmtopdf, with a view to achieving the Holy Grail of saving an edited page with active embedded links (which wkhtmltopdf can do, at least for unedited pages). I know this has come up before, and your reply if I remember was that saving to PDF was a secondary function and just used an internal FF PDF routine to do the save. I then came up against the FF xpi validation/signing restrictions and decided life was too short, even though there is a way of disabling signing verification by using two short js config files. But doing that probably really does leave the doors open to all sorts of nasties.
I currently use a custom button to send the url of the page (so it's the whole page) to wkhtmltopdf and it outputs a tolerable or better pdf with active embedded links over 90% of the time. But it is always the whole page, so often there is unnecessary bloat. If Print-Edit could do the same thing with the edited html that would be truly awesome!
Which leaves FF. So isn't the thing that we should be berating FF for its regressive changes rather than having a go at Print Edit's developer, who is doing his best under trying circumstances not of his own making?
Oh, and by the way, any FF supporters out there who say the current FF is better and/or why would I not want a more secure FF: the answer is I want adequate security, not Fort Knox.
Edit: DW-dev: thanks for your response. Seems I can't add a response under yours so mine will have to go here, as an edit. The three stars remain because, as I said, the FFFs (roll your own on what the third F stands for) require an assessment so I went for average/neutral.
My 'review' was more about WE = less functionality and flexibility and applies particularly to valuable but complex add-ons like yours, hence saying it here.
A bit of background: I was trying to edit your code to see if I could get the Save PDF button to send the edited html stream to wkhtmtopdf, with a view to achieving the Holy Grail of saving an edited page with active embedded links (which wkhtmltopdf can do, at least for unedited pages). I know this has come up before, and your reply if I remember was that saving to PDF was a secondary function and just used an internal FF PDF routine to do the save. I then came up against the FF xpi validation/signing restrictions and decided life was too short, even though there is a way of disabling signing verification by using two short js config files. But doing that probably really does leave the doors open to all sorts of nasties.
I currently use a custom button to send the url of the page (so it's the whole page) to wkhtmltopdf and it outputs a tolerable or better pdf with active embedded links over 90% of the time. But it is always the whole page, so often there is unnecessary bloat. If Print-Edit could do the same thing with the edited html that would be truly awesome!
Developer response
posted 7 years agoA reasonable assessment without trying Print Edit WE !!
Looking at all of the reviews, the negative points raised were:
1. Two-stage initiation sequence. Option to skip preparation stage in Print Edit WE 20.0
2. Duplicating original tab may lose some information. Necessary for integrity.
3. Page Breaks shortcut key (#) not working. Fixed in Print Edit WE 20.0.
4. Preview button didn't work. Fixed with Firefox 56.
5. Save As PDF didn't work. Fixed with Firefox 56.
6. Fix Page Breaks command missing. Will be added in next version.
7. Cannot edit Mozilla Add-ons web pages. Mozilla restriction.
8. Permissions. The original Print Edit had greater permissions.
Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 have been fixed. Points 7 & 8 are facts of life.
Looking at all of the reviews, the negative points raised were:
1. Two-stage initiation sequence. Option to skip preparation stage in Print Edit WE 20.0
2. Duplicating original tab may lose some information. Necessary for integrity.
3. Page Breaks shortcut key (#) not working. Fixed in Print Edit WE 20.0.
4. Preview button didn't work. Fixed with Firefox 56.
5. Save As PDF didn't work. Fixed with Firefox 56.
6. Fix Page Breaks command missing. Will be added in next version.
7. Cannot edit Mozilla Add-ons web pages. Mozilla restriction.
8. Permissions. The original Print Edit had greater permissions.
Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 have been fixed. Points 7 & 8 are facts of life.