such as JS blocking, which I refuse to browse the web without (e.g. NoScript on Firefox)
Conversation
No, that's still possible with the new API, especially with the added support for dynamic rules. I recommend reading over the API documentation at developer.chrome.com/extensions/dec. Just keep in mind the current limits are placeholders and they haven't decided on the real initial values.
1
1
The placeholder values (30000 static rules, etc.) were set as a lower bound to avoid a situation like setting it to 3000000 and then needing to lower it to 500000 at a later point. It has been officially stated a bunch of times that the shipped values are going to end up higher.
1
NoScript allows you to block all JS by default (the most secure way to browse the web). This doesn't allow for that AFAIK.
NoScript also has other security features like XSS detection which needs to be able to read requests.
2
1
if they care about the performance overhead they should work on that. if they're worried about abuse they should work on that. breaking web standards is lazy and monopolistic
1
2
The performance and reliability issues with webRequest are tied to it fundamentally working based on intercepting, reading and modifying each request. That inherently involves communication between the browser core and sandboxed extension process running the JavaScript extension.
2
There's no web standard involved in this. It's the Chromium extension API, not a web standard. They're moving to the superior declarative approach used by Safari. I recommend reading developer.chrome.com/extensions/dec and developer.apple.com/documentation/ rather than spreading misinformation.
1
how about you actually explain it instead of insulting people
1
I haven't insulted anyone here. Can you please be specific about what you're claiming is an insult? I've looked through my tweets to confirm and I don't see anything that could be reasonably interpreted as an insult or personal attack. What exactly are you talking about?
1
I don't see that either. I'm not the one falsely accusing someone of insulting people. If you read the documentation, which isn't particularly long, you'll see that what I'm saying is true and won't need to me to explain it in detail. Can block non-whitelisted JavaScript by type.
You can see from there that it's possible to make a static rule set blocking JavaScript based on type, and that it's possible to include whitelisted exceptions and to extend those with dynamic rules. That's something fitting into the declarative model, unlike some other things.
Replying to
"read the docs" is analogous to "f u, scrub, can't you read?". claiming I'm spreading misinformation continues that trend. this conversation would've been much shorter & more pleasant if you'd had said that dynamic rules don't require a URL filter from the start
1
Replying to
It was misinformation. The fact that people liked it shows that people were misinformed / misled by it too. The original post (not by you) is clearly spreading fake news, and their lack of retraction / response to corrections is starting to demonstrate that it was deliberate.