Technology

59631 readers

2829 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1064

Google Chrome’s plan to limit ad blocking extensions kicks off next week (arstechnica.com)

submitted 5 months ago by AnActOfCreation@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

359 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Reminder to switch browsers if you haven't already!

Google Chrome is starting to phase out older, more capable ad blocking extensions in favor of the more limited Manifest V3 system.
The Manifest V3 system has been criticized by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation for restricting the capabilities of web extensions.
Google has made concessions to Manifest V3, but limitations on content filtering remain a source of skepticism and concern.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dan@upvote.au 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, IE was the best browser around the time IE6 was released (2000/2001). Way better than Netscape. Opera was the other good browser back then. The initial release of Firefox wasn't quite there yet.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Better for MS non-standard things? Or better how? Performance-wise - yes.

IMHO a web browser has to support HTML 4.* , JS, Netscape plugins (Java, Flash, whatever else) and that's it.

That's what I came to when I started using the Web, but I'm confident it's not just bias - that was the best combination. I'm not sure on CSS - I hated it, but people have good arguments in favor of it. But hypertext with limited appearance tuning and scripts for the web itself, plus plugins for various content, including applications, - that's definitely a better idea than the modern approach.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Better for MS non-standard things? Or better how?

All browsers had non-standard things back then, to the point where many sites had two versions: An IE version and a Netscape version.

Believe it or not, back then Internet Explorer was the most standards-compliant browser. It was the first browser to implement the DOM and CSS based on relevant W3C specs (Netscape was backing JSSS instead).

Many features we take for granted these days came from IE. Drag and drop, the JS events system, iframes, rich text editing, clipboard access, AJAX (dynamically loading content on the page without a full page reload), visual effects like transparency and gradients, all originally came from Internet Explorer.

The CSS box-model in IE6 (including margin, padding and border in the width of elements) was wrong because the CSS spec hadn't been finalized by the time of its release so Microsoft used a draft, and it changed from publication of the draft to publication of the final version. Many years later, people realised that IE6's model was actually the better model, which is why every browser supports it now via box-sizing: border-box.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

Sigh. OK, since I didn't use Netscape (started around 2002), didn't know about some of these.