DivMagic VS chromium

I'm currently working on an extension as well ([0]) and share the same concerns many have mentioned about extensions here. I'd like to highlight another dimension concerning the Browser APIs ([1]).

Handling the permissions necessary for certain API functionalities and the corresponding warning messages can be somewhat confusing. For instance, our extension uses "chrome.devtools.panels" to open a new window within DevTools. This API doesn't require any permissions by itself. Yet, for messaging across the popup, content, and DevTools windows, we're required to use activeTab and sendMessage APIs. The DevTools window operates in its unique context, almost like a tab within another tab. For example, updating the URL in the active tab doesn't directly update the DevTools window but triggers an event.

Messaging across these different contexts requires the "https://*/*" host permission, without which Chrome and Firefox won't send the messages between these isolated windows.

We made this permission optional, the DevTools Panel is activated only upon receiving explicit user consent. However, the permission prompt's messaging is something like "This extension requires access to all your data," which sounds very alarming. We don't access any data nor that we want to, but requiring that permission is mandatory since the message APIs won't work without them.

This is just one example of the many undocumented complexities within Chrome's documentation. Similar pitfalls exist with message exchanges between the background service and content scripts. Sometimes you don't know why your API call doesn't work even though you think you have the required permission and asking for more permissions show very alarming messages to users.

I think that a more granular permission approach, made specific to API functionalities rather than broad permissions that cover a list of APIs, would significantly help user experience. For example, requesting permission for the "sendMessage API" with a clear explanation would be far more informative for users than the general "All host https:///" permissions.

There's also the issue of building for different browser. The same browser API calls can have different permissions requirement on Chrome and Firefox which makes the development process more difficult and more confusing for users since the same extension requires different permissions on different browsers.

[0] https://divmagic.com

You can see more demo videos here: https://divmagic.com

It doesn't need to be designed with Tailwind, just use DivMagic and convert it to Tailwind!

This is really Tailwind before Tailwind. I didn't know about it.

I'm working on a css style copying project on the side (DivMagic https://divmagic.com/) and I might add Tachyons as an option there

You can use DivMagic (https://divmagic.com)

I created a tool (DivMagic) which lets you copy any element from any website and convert it into HTML/JSX(React)/CSS/Tailwind CSS component.

You can make use of a tool like DivMagic (https://divmagic.com) to convert elements into inline CSS components

Wanted to shamelessly plug my tool here: DivMagic (https://divmagic.com)

I’m a big fan of Tailwind. I’d encourage you to checkout a tool called DivMagic. It allows you to copy any element from any website and paste them as tailwind components in your codebase. Super useful for building front ends quickly. Feels like a cheat code.

If none of the provided solutions work any you need to convert Tailwind CSS to inline raw CSS, you can make use of a tool like DivMagic (https://divmagic.com) to handle the conversion easily

One of the unexpected use of shadow DOMs for me was a document generated for image resource URLs [1], because the HTML standard apparently specifies the exact DOM structure of the generated document except for the `` element [2].

[1] https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/f02ca73/third_part...

[2] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/document-lifecycle.ht...

Recently my favorite open source mouse gestures extension SmartUp Gestures was taken over by some shady entity (with github no longer being updated of course).

I opened Chrome ticket that they should ask to re-enable extension when ownership changes. They just closed the ticket replying with this link:

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/extens...

:(

Hmm. It looks like files with the .lnk or .pif file extension can only be downloaded on a user gesture: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/39841e54180...

So it can't be done silently. Although, I do wish the type was marked "DANGEROUS" a la dll files.

On Linux, Chromium uses setuid or user namespaces to restrict the access of sandboxed components and seccomp-bpf to reduce the kernel attack surface.

Check out the Chromium docs on this topic: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/docs/l...

You can also disable JIT in Firefox by setting javascript.options.baselinejit to false in about:config, although you won't get CET.

[1] https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/12c232c43ce7324d30...

Chromium targets iOS already: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...

For the sake of completeness, I've traced the evolution of the notice over time:

From 2008-07-26: "Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of: / • Websites that collect or share information about you / • Internet service providers or employers that track the pages you visit / • Malicious software that tracks your keystrokes in exchange for free smileys / • Surveillance by secret agents / • People standing behind you" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/09911bf300f...)

From 2013-12-07: "Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, software, or people standing behind you." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/c5e36c57178...)

From 2013-12-13: "However, you aren't invisible. Going incognito doesn't hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/70821506825...)

From 2014-02-27: "However, you aren't invisible. Going incognito doesn't hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, governments and other sophisticated attackers, or the websites you visit." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/ab54bd65701...)

From 2014-04-29: "Going incognito doesn't hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/eb09a62ef40...)

From 2016-01-15: "However, you aren't invisible. Going incognito doesn’t hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit." (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/b7dac1a6a79...)

From 2017-02-27: "Your activity might still be visible to: / • Websites you visit / • Your employer / • Your internet service provider" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/cfe102adddc...)

From 2017-03-29: "Your activity might still be visible to: / • Websites you visit / • Your employer or school / • Your internet service provider" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/7ca3ccf74e8...)

(Note that some of these were behind a feature flag for a few months.) Also, it looks like they've been intending to modify the new-tab page text for Incognito windows for some time, as part of the "Revamped Incognito NTP" project. You can view the modified text with 'chromium --enable-features=IncognitoNtpRevamp':

From 2021-08-13: "What Incognito doesn't do / Incognito does not make you invisible online: / • Sites know when you visit them / • Employers or schools can track browsing activity / • Internet service providers may monitor web traffic" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e6ae57ba385...)

From 2022-01-25: "What Incognito doesn't do / Incognito does not make you invisible online: / • Sites and the services they use can see visits / • Employers or schools can track browsing activity / • Internet service providers can monitor web traffic" (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/8b349f6c984...)

Blink can now be compiled for iOS, but without JIT or WASM:

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=141170...

I think its weird that Vercel has this limit. There is no practical reason I can think of for having such a limit on URL characters that is so small. Chrome suggests a 2MB limit[0] for example. The platform itself doesn't have one, and Firefox I believe if memory serves (I can't find the source for this claim atm) is 1 MB effectively, and I don't think Safari is any lower than that either (and may well be more inline with Chrome on this, at 2 MB)

[0]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs...