12 ms·

Question about browser implementation: if the Edge team knew that this element's sole purpose was to mess with their performance, couldn't they just configure E

Question about browser implementation: if the Edge team knew that this element's sole purpose was to mess with their performance, couldn't they just configure Edge to ignore that HTLM element when loading a YouTube page? Just strip it from the DOM completely, as though the element never existed?

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
When building a web-browser, you don’t make one-off patches for each website.
- tluyben2 8y ago
  Microsoft made many one-off patches for a lot of 3rd party software in Windows; if this hurts them I cannot see how it is different.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Those were not malicious though, and the software would not intentionally break it next patch. But in this case it would.
    - tluyben2 8y ago
      Weren't they? In any case? I'm not sure about that, but yes, could be true.
- manfredo 8y ago
  To expand upon my original question, I get that adding in functionality specific to each website is not ideal. But the technical cost here (removal of one DOM element from one website) seems to be drastically smaller than the payoff (not getting screwed over in terms of performance on one of the world's most popular websites). Am I seriously underestimating the eng cost of such a patch, or is there some unwritten rule that browsers aren't supposed to mess with the HTML that a page serves?
  - DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
    Because within hours of the patch Google would modify YouTube to break it again and Microsoft’s users would have to wait until the next Patch Tuesday - repeat ad infinitum.
- lmz 8y ago
  Oh you do, well at least you used to: https://dev.opera.com/blog/opera-s-site-patching/ https://dev.opera.com/blog/opera-s-site-patching/
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Under the condition that a major website is behaving in a purposefully malicious manner, a one-off patch might be reasonable.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    How many one-off patches will be needed since the malicious website will just change something else as soon as the fix is deployed? And rinse and repeat.

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago

When building a web-browser, you don’t make one-off patches for each website.

tluyben2 8y ago
Microsoft made many one-off patches for a lot of 3rd party software in Windows; if this hurts them I cannot see how it is different.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Those were not malicious though, and the software would not intentionally break it next patch. But in this case it would.
  - tluyben2 8y ago
    Weren't they? In any case? I'm not sure about that, but yes, could be true.
manfredo 8y ago
To expand upon my original question, I get that adding in functionality specific to each website is not ideal. But the technical cost here (removal of one DOM element from one website) seems to be drastically smaller than the payoff (not getting screwed over in terms of performance on one of the world's most popular websites). Am I seriously underestimating the eng cost of such a patch, or is there some unwritten rule that browsers aren't supposed to mess with the HTML that a page serves?
- DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
  Because within hours of the patch Google would modify YouTube to break it again and Microsoft’s users would have to wait until the next Patch Tuesday - repeat ad infinitum.
lmz 8y ago
Oh you do, well at least you used to: https://dev.opera.com/blog/opera-s-site-patching/ https://dev.opera.com/blog/opera-s-site-patching/
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
Under the condition that a major website is behaving in a purposefully malicious manner, a one-off patch might be reasonable.
- belltaco 8y ago
  How many one-off patches will be needed since the malicious website will just change something else as soon as the fix is deployed? And rinse and repeat.