4 ms·
The bit about adblockers provides context on why this article is worth my attention. I'm not an extension developer, so "Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary"
by khrbrt 7y ago
The bit about adblockers provides context on why this article is worth my attention. I'm not an extension developer, so "Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary" means nothing to me.
But this:
>The most controversial aspect of the extension manifest v3 is the upcoming changes to the webRequest API. In v3, Google has changed the API so that extensions can only monitor browser connections, but not modify any of the content before it's displayed.
>Instead Google wants developers to use the declarativeNetRequest API, which has the browser, not the extension, strip content or resources from a visited web sites. This API, though, has a limit of 30,000 rules that can be created.
>Unfortunately, this change will break popular ad blockers such as uBlock Origin, which rely on the original functionality of the webRequest API and need more rules than are available in the declarativeNetRequest API.
Is very worrying. So thanks to the submitter.
- wffurr 7y agoIt's also completely misleading and perhaps willfully so. The limit's been raised. The removed API is used by half of all detected malicious extensions to spy on users. Ad blockers will continue to work fine with the new API, just like they do on Safari now.
- fwn 7y ago> The limit's been raised. I thought the worrying thing isn't whether it's a 30k or 300k limit but that Google itself chooses the amount of filters users can apply. It feels to me that this is just asking for the abuse of power. I don't think the specific number itself is anyones primary concern.
- anoncake 7y ago> The removed API is used by half of all detected malicious extensions to spy on users. The API wasn't completely removed. You can add still use it to monitor requests, you can't block them anymore.