uBlock-Safari VS interop

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.

It has been there but won't ever be again: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158

Better to fork it and maintain as another project, like previous ublock's project on safari: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari

Brilliant move not supporting normal Webextensions though. https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158

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/

You probably can't. Safari crippled adblockers a while back. Here's a longer explanation from the developers of the best blocking extension.

There is popular demand (including from Adobe https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/430#iss... ), which is arguably evidence against (2).

Microsoft Edge does support AV1, but weirdly only through a Microsoft Store extension [1], even though Chrome has support built-in. This actually really sucks because in practice hardly any normal consumers would bother to install a strangely named extension, and so web developers have to assume it's largely unsupported in Edge. Safari ties support to a hardware decoder, which I suppose is understandable to avoid accidental battery drain from using a software codec, and means eventually in some year's time support can generally be relied upon when enough new hardware is in use. But that won't happen with Edge as things stand!

I think it's high time the web had a single audio and video codec choice that was widely supported, which is why I've proposed support for AV1 and Opus for the Interop 2024 effort [2] [3].

[1] https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/av1-video-extension/9MVZQV...

[2] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/485

[3] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/484

This is the comment to read:

https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/430#iss...

It got me drooling for JPEG XL like I never did for WebP or HEIC.

The Interop group describe this focus area as: "enable testing for font stack capabilities and enable additional expressiveness with vector color fonts. (Font feature detection and palettes)".

I would say that overall InterOp 2022 went well, they completed most of what they planned to do. Of the 15 focus areas, 13 focus areas had an InterOp score of over 80%.

Interop 2023 is under development, the project timeline states that a public announcement will be made this week. 🤞

https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#ios-saf...

And

https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#evidenc...

Make sure you tap more comments to see the examples.

The number one issue for building native like apps is this https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/84

It has been buggy for as long as I can remember and never been fixed.

Not to mention the 10 years of issues with indexeddb or the issues with WebRTC.

Open Web Advocacy has been very clear that they want competition on iOS, not Chrome specifically. The reason being that the absence of competition is currently allowing Apple to deteriorate the web experience on iOS, preventing the web and web apps from competing with native apps. Their objective is to lift these artificial limitations imposed by Apple and free the web.

OWA members have actually been actively reporting WebKit bugs and interacting with the Safari team to help prioritise features and bug fixes on Twitter and elsewhere, showing the goal is to improve the overall web experience on iOS, not let Chrome to become dominant. Here is one of their detailed bug report: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022/issues/84.

Container Queries and Subgrid are only available in Safari Technology Preview, not stable, and Firefox has actually been supporting Subgrid for more than 2 years. Because CQ is not supported by either Chrome of Firefox, it will be at least 2 years before we can start actually using it.

It would have been much wiser for Safari to catch up on the dozens of features they don't support that both Chrome and Firefox do, or to focus on bug fixes for the most basic features that's been broken for years. Instead, they chose to ship shiny new ones to try and convince both regulators (from the EU, UK, US, etc) and web developers that they are leading the way in feature adoption. Unfortunately this seems to be working to some extent in the web devs community. Regulators are unlikely to fall for it though.

Here is the 7 years old scrolling bug I'm referring to, which prevents any decent implementation of modals in Safari on iOS: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022/issues/84

Here you can see that Safari has 5 times more API failures (representative of both missing features and bugs) than Chrome, and 3 times more than Firefox: https://wpt.fyi/