construct-stylesheets
uBlock-Safari
construct-stylesheets | uBlock-Safari | |
---|---|---|
7 | 45 | |
138 | 2,752 | |
0.0% | - | |
0.0 | 0.0 | |
over 1 year ago | over 3 years ago | |
Bikeshed | JavaScript | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
construct-stylesheets
-
Safari releases are development hell
> With adoptedStyleSheets they're objecting to making backwards incompatible changes
Which would not be bacwards incompatible if they hadn't shipped something that wasn't agreed on in the first place.
Again, slowly: they literally shipped that to production despite loud and explicit objecitons from both Firefox and Safari they shipped it to production. When asked to hide it back behind the flag, "but backwards incompatible change, the framework we're developing is already depending on it"
And since you're quoting rniwa, here's the relevant quote https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45#issu...:
--- start quote ---
I feel like I’ve put so much time & energy into making this feature something sane & useful, and all you did was basically to dismiss many of my feedbacks and go with whatever you like and just ship it. And now you’re saying you can’t make changes because you shipped it?
I’m sorry but that’s just not how standards work.
--- end quote ---
> With WebMIDI they're saying they want to do an announcement before making the change.
Indeed. Once again: because they shipped an API that neither Safari nor Mozilla supported. Now that this issue has surfaced (no thanks to Chrome), they can't just roll it back or fix it because people already rely ono this behaviour, which the implicitly acknowledge.
-
W3C re-launched as a public-interest non-profit organization
It's not true, to w3c's surprising credit.
What Google does, is publish a "draft" which is as far from a standard as their authors are from the Moon. This gives Chrome the leeway to call it an "emerging standard" and just ship it. It doesn't care if there are objections, or that other browser vendors will not implement it. It's now a "standard" in Google's dictionary.
For something to become a W3C standard even in the present world, you need a consensus and at least two independent implementations. None of that exists for stuff Google pushes out (hardware APIs, web transport, constructible stylesheets [1], the list goes on...).
The correct name for those is Chrome-only non-standards.
[1] These one isn't even a draft. It is.... "a collection of interesting ideas" in a working group https://wicg.github.io/construct-stylesheets/ Shipped by default in Chrome, of course
-
SQLite WASM in the Browser Backed by the Origin Private File System
I literally provided just some of the examples. Those are easily verifiable.
Web Transport is shipped by default. What was the input from other browser?
Here's the timeline for HID: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is...
Constructible Stylesheets: the spec contained a trivially reproducible race condition, the API was badly specified. Google shipped against any objections and refused to bring it back under the flag. Full discussion here: https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45. Shipped in Chrome https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45#issu... (may be hidden on mobile) despite multiple unresolved issues. Two years later Chrome did add a better API that people originally requested, other issues potentially remain.
-
Apple Is Not Defending Browser Engine Choice
> If there are examples of 'Apple ignoring standards' actually meaning Chrome-only features please tell me one.
Easy.
The most obvious/glaring one is WebHID. Enjoy the timeline: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459
It's not just HID, of course. All/most of the hardware APIs are considered harmful by both Safari and Mozilla. Chrome is shipping them enabled by default, and there's no end to clueless developers maoning about this and calling Safari (mostly) and Firefox (from time to time) too slow in "moving the web forward". Needless to say that all those non-standards are pushed forward by Chrome.
The less obvious one is Constructable Stylesheets.
The spec had an obvious flaw that could lead to easily reproducible deadlocks. And that is on top with other issues with design, API naming etc. A team within Google (lit-html) wanted this feature, so Chrome shipped it against clear objections from both Safari and Firefox. And then refused to move the feature back under a flag because "0.8% of page views in Chrome" were suddenly using this feature. And proceded to gaslight other browsers' developers https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45. See e.g. a response to that https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45#issu... Of course there's now a "looking ahead" that wants to do exactly what Safari and Mozilla wanted to do in the first place: https://web.dev/constructable-stylesheets/#looking-ahead
In general, Chrome pushes 40 to over 100 new Web APIs with each release (that is, every two months). How many of them are actual standards that had actual input from other browser developers? In how many Chrome actually listened and implemented suggestions? https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence
-
“Safari's buggy” is valid criticism. “Safari's behind Chrome in features” is not
> The negatives are often theoretical
They are not theoretical. Too bad webapicontroversy.com has been shut down (it looked like this [1]), but you can scroll down to "defer" and "considered harmful" in Mozilla's positions here: [2]
There are more, of course, but they are not visible unless you're willing to follow thousands of issues across hundreds of GitHub repositories. One that springs to mind is, of course Constructible Stylesheets. Mozilla and Safari: the spec describes an algorithm that leads to deadlock in trivial code, we wont implement it until this is fixed. [3] Chrome: ship it, because lit-html (developed by Google) wants it and is already using it. And then procedes to gaslight people and misrepresent their positions (cant' find the relevant link, but at this point I can't find the will to dive into the cesspool).
[1] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32768/108985355-3f...
[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
[3] https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45#issu...
uBlock-Safari
- Any way at all to run Ublock origin on any browser for an iPhone?
-
uBlock Origin Lite now available on Firefox
You are mistaken. Safari removed the APIs necessary for an uBlock port (there used to be one), see https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158.
Injecting code via Web Extensions is too late for reliable blocking - by then, either the malicious JS you are trying to defuse has already ran (if it wasn't blocked declaratively), or if it hasn't, then the rest of the page's JS depending on it has already exploded and "fixing" it after the fact (by substituting a neutered shim via Web Extensions) doesn't fix the rest of the page.
-
uBlock Origin 1.49.2 Available as Thunderbird Add-On
It has been there but won't ever be again: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158
-
Are there any updates on Safari support?
Better to fork it and maintain as another project, like previous ublock's project on safari: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari
- Firefox is the last bastion of pirate ad-free hope. Can Mozilla hold out?
-
The Triumph of Safari - 2022 was a transformative year for Apple’s browser
Brilliant move not supporting normal Webextensions though. https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158
- Apple Safari browser plugin/extension architecture.
- Is Adguard pro a good safari extension?
-
DuckDuckGo for Mac beta now open to the public
Looks like the answer is no, Safari is not supported.
> ..as of 2022, uBlock Origin’s extension is available for several of the most widely used browsers, including: Chrome, Chromium, Edge, Opera, Firefox and all Safari releases prior to 13.
https://ublockorigin.com/
Explanation of the state of uBlock Origin (and other blockers) for Safari - https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158
Apparently, the only WebKit-based browser that can run uBO is Orion browser (beta, Mac only).
https://browser.kagi.com/
-
How can one stop pop up tabs on the website Movies2Watch?
You probably can't. Safari crippled adblockers a while back. Here's a longer explanation from the developers of the best blocking extension.
What are some alternatives?
interop - web-platform-tests Interop project
vimium - The hacker's browser.
file-system-access - Expose the file system on the user’s device, so Web apps can interoperate with the user’s native applications.
webextension-polyfill - A lightweight polyfill library for Promise-based WebExtension APIs in Chrome
fs - File System Standard
firefox-ios - Firefox for iOS
absurd-sql - sqlite3 in ur indexeddb (hopefully a better backend soon)
WebKit - Home of the WebKit project, the browser engine used by Safari, Mail, App Store and many other applications on macOS, iOS and Linux.
OSX-KVM - Run macOS on QEMU/KVM. With OpenCore + Monterey + Ventura + Sonoma support now! Only commercial (paid) support is available now to avoid spammy issues. No Mac system is required.
ghostery-extension - Ghostery Browser Extension for Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Edge and Safari
topics - The Topics API
Retroactive - Retroactive only receives limited support. Run Aperture, iPhoto, and iTunes on macOS Sonoma, macOS Ventura, macOS Monterey, macOS Big Sur, and macOS Catalina. Xcode 11.7 on macOS Mojave. Final Cut Pro 7, Logic Pro 9, and iWork ’09 on macOS Mojave or macOS High Sierra.