standards-positions VS uBlock-issues

You can check why Mozilla and Apple have opted to not support this.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28

Neither Mozilla or Webkit are satisfied that the proposal is safe by default, and contains footguns for the user that can be pretty destructive.

FWIW Mozilla updated their position on Web Serial API to "neutral" and clarified that they might be okay with enabling the API with an add-on.

https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webserial

Allowing serial but not HID would be really strange. With HID you get standard identifiers that let you filter out devices that are too dangerous for the web. With serial you get nothing. Even if you know a device is dangerous, there's no way to protect users from it.

Hasn't FireFox been dragging their asses on @scope? https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472

It took years to just convince them of the need for it. And I'm not sure anyone got convinced vs Chrome had already shipped it and Safari has it planned so they caved in.

Hard to believe FireFox used to be a leader of the modern web.

As mentioned by others, OK idea, but not a fan that this isn't standardized. After a quick search+peruse, these seem to indicate that it's not around the corner either. Happy (/hope) to be corrected.

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4180

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/990

Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100

I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare.

It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.

This should have big warnings on it. Some of these are not web standards; they are features implemented unilaterally by Google in Blink that have been explicitly rejected by both Mozilla and Apple on privacy and security grounds.

Take Web Bluetooth, for example:

Mozilla:

> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.

— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth

Apple:

> Here are some examples of features we have decided to not yet implement due to fingerprinting, security, and other concerns, and where we do not yet see a path to resolving those concerns

— https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/

This is Microsoft’s Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish bullshit applied to the web platform by Google. Google keeps implementing these things despite all other major rendering engines rejecting them, convinces people that they are part of the web, resulting in sites like this, then people start asking why Firefox and Safari are “missing functionality”. These are not part of the web platform, they are Google APIs that have been explicitly rejected.

Is BLE a PWA requirement? I think they explained their position pretty well here, regardless of whether I agree:

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

I took a glance at Can I Use what the difference between the last public release of Firefox and Chrome is [1] and they don't really have that big of a difference in the eyes of normal use-cases? Some of these aren't implemented purely because of privacy reasons, the proposals aren't finished yet or complexity [2].

Why would Firefox need to change to Chromium engine? The only websites I notice that don't work with Firefox is because of user-agent targetting or just putting 5-second time-outs in Youtube code on non-chrome webbrowsers [3].

Can you give some examples of websites not working on Firefox?

[1] https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+120%2Cfirefox+121&compar...

[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

[3] https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-seemingly-intentionally-...

Mozilla are dragging their heels on @scope:

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472

https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/implement-css-scope-rul...

Someone who clearly didn't get it was wasting three years time "well actually"ing everything. The latest news is "it's worth prototyping". Meanwhile Chrome has released it(steam rolled?) and Safari has it in tech preview.

I question if FireFox has the resources to keep up with the pace of the modern web.

There is an open issue for this: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/2786 uBO should report such filter as en error in Firefox, so that is the thing to fix.

This would be the price of one of the four CDNs (6000$ per month): https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/2958

opened a bug report https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/3003

Current estimated cost for just ONE of uBO's CDNs: HERE. This is with other lists updating every few days. uBO's not a company, it's a volunteer project using free services, which have limits that we cannot cross.

The extension with the best success rate seems to be **uBlock Origin**. It is a community driven project with a team of volunteers, you can review the source code [here](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock). You will need to update your filter lists regularly, this because Youtube changes detection methods daily. Here is how you do that:

Definitely a much-needed area for development. However, having gone down the browser extension rabbit hole, I've largely shifted my focus to user scripts. Granted, there will always be a need for specialized browser extensions like ad blockers (uBlock[1]), keyboard shortcuts (Vimium-C[2]), and password managers (Bitwarden[3]).

That said, I find user scripts superior for most tasks, despite some lacking UI niceties. They are easier to share, use, and crucially, audit—be it in terms of scope, permissions, or code updates. Plus if Manifest V3 is any indicator, the future for browser extensions looks bleak. While I don't agree with this direction, it's probably for the best for the majority of users, like my mom.

Your effort is commendable; however, should you find yourself looking for a viable pivot in the future, I believe the user script space is primed for innovation and could offer a good alternative.

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

const defineProperty = function(chain, cValue, middleware = undefined) { let aborted = false; const mustAbort = function(v) { if ( aborted ) { return true; } aborted = (v !== undefined && v !== null) && (cValue !== undefined && cValue !== null) && (typeof v !== typeof cValue); return aborted; }; // https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/156 // Support multiple trappers for the same property. // // trapProp is used to trap a single property within an object. const trapProp = function(owner, prop, configurable, handler) { if ( handler.init(owner[prop]) === false ) { return; } const odesc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(owner, prop); let prevGetter, prevSetter; if ( odesc instanceof Object ) { if ( odesc.configurable === false ) { return; } if ( odesc.get instanceof Function ) { prevGetter = odesc.get; } if ( odesc.set instanceof Function ) { prevSetter = odesc.set; } } Object.defineProperty(owner, prop, { configurable, //When a property is accessed (get), the custom getter function is called. get() { if ( prevGetter !== undefined ) { prevGetter(); } return handler.getter(); // cValue }, // When a property is modified (set), the custom setter function is called. set(a) { if ( prevSetter !== undefined ) { prevSetter(a); } handler.setter(a); } }); }; // trapChain is used to recursively trap properties along a chain of properties (e.g., object1.object2.property). const trapChain = function(owner, chain) { const pos = chain.indexOf('.'); if ( pos === -1 ) { trapProp(owner, chain, true, { v: undefined, init: function(v) { if ( mustAbort(v) ) { return false; } this.v = v; return true; }, getter: function() { return cValue; }, setter: function(a) { // Middleware is called when a property is set, allowing additional processing or validation of the new value. if (middleware instanceof Function) { cValue = a; middleware(a); } else { if ( mustAbort(a) === false ) { return; } cValue = a; } } }); return; } const prop = chain.slice(0, pos); const v = owner[prop]; chain = chain.slice(pos + 1); if ( v instanceof Object || typeof v === 'object' && v !== null ) { trapChain(v, chain); return; } trapProp(owner, prop, true, { v: undefined, init: function(v) { this.v = v; return true; }, getter: function() { return this.v; }, setter: function(a) { this.v = a; if ( a instanceof Object ) { trapChain(a, chain); } } }); }; trapChain(window, chain); }

Maybe https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/2725 ?