2 ms·
Yeah, a bookmarklet should work pretty well too, although indeed needs the font installed locally or requests going out to another sever. The advantage of the e
by Vinnl 4y ago
Yeah, a bookmarklet should work pretty well too, although indeed needs the font installed locally or requests going out to another sever. The advantage of the extension in that sense is that it includes the font locally and has a keyboard shortcut.
Someone else also mentioned that font, so I logged that here: https://gitlab.com/vincenttunru/obfuscate/-/issues/2 https://gitlab.com/vincenttunru/obfuscate/-/issues/2
- dylan604 4y agoBut in the course of prepping screen shots with obfuscated text for use wherever, would the cost of hitting an additional server for a font be that bad? It's not like the whole webpage is not allowed to render because of this post-render user initiated change to specifically mess with the text.
- Vinnl 4y agoNot that bad, depending on your value system, but I like not sending more requests to e.g. Google's servers. But of course, definitely use the bookmarklet if you prefer that over my extension!
- zhfliz 4y agofont injection using a remote server is also problematic due to CSP
- dspillett 4y agoThat sort of font is small enough that it could probably be encoded in the bookmarklet¹, and inserted into the target page's styling via a data Uri. Extra steps, but it would remove the need for the font to be locally available otherwise or requested from elsewhere. [1] I'm not sure want the limits on those are on modern browsers, the length that would work varied quite a bit back in the day. It was small in IE (<2K?) though I'm not sure IE of the time I'm remembering the bookmark referred to previously supported fonts loaded that way anyway.
- Vinnl 4y agoYeah good point! If I was starting this now I might've gone the bookmarklet route. Alas, I've got an extension now :)