Remove noscript10/19/2023 ![]() You already seem to be aware of a tool-set that could do that. Block all Request from foreign domains.The solutions I can see in this matter (right now) are the following: This is also nothing your browser does "behind your back" and you're probably more concerned about the third party that delivered that graphic than your browser. A browser is unaware of the actual data that is being loaded from a URL just by looking at it and as such would not able to detect a one by one tracking pixel before actually loading it. The article you linked in one of your comments is, in my opinion, about a different topic than your question though.Īs far as the stated scenario in your question is concerned, it's the normal operation of a browser to request resources that are part of page. You're correct that certain browsers are doing more than some would like them to be. I'm not sure where your actual concern is with the information of whenever or not your browser has JavaScript enabled or not. Checking the extension's console, I see no "Passing. The JavaScript is only getting called for the specific tracking URL. Likewise, a red failure line in the Network tab.Īlso, the URL pre-filtering is working well. The page's console log has an error message net::ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT for the image fetch. The extension worked fine on the page in question. Its only role is to highlight the extension's entry on the chrome://extensions page. Or delete it and let the browser supply a dummy one. "description": "Keeps the browser from fetching tracking URLs",Ĭonsole.log("Website Blocker is running!") See chrome.webRequest for a description of the Chrome browser's API for watching, modifying, or blocking requests in flight. However once picture is supported, that is a better option than the alternative, which is that those who have JavaScript disabled in browser that supports picture would see two copies of the same image.I don't know of way to turn off evaluation of, but in the above example, you could write a short browser extension to cancel any request with a url containing the substring /tr?. Initially, the 0.2% of site traffic that actually has JavaScript disabled will see alt text rather than an image. Modify tests to no longer check for the noscript element or fallback image. Remove supporting functions that generate the fallback image in the noscript element Modify markup to remove noscript element Remove noscript from our markup for the picture element. That means that 0.2% of traffic will see alt text instead of an image, but that's probably better than getting two copies of an images downloaded and displayed, which slows down page rendering time and screws up the layout. A better solution is to drop noscript from our markup. As browsers start to implement picture support, though, noscript will become a real problem for those people, as it will cause them to see two copies of an image. So right now noscript provides a benefit to a small number of people: the 0.2% of traffic where JS is disabled in the browser. If JS is enabled but not working, noscript doesn't do anything: that's a much larger percentage, about 0.9% of traffic. ) shows that noscript only works when JS is disabled in the browser, which is about 0.2% of traffic. The problem is that for those who are using a browser that supports picture, but have JavaScript disabled, they will get two copies of the image downloaded and displayed, which is really bad. Once that change is made, we will have another issue, which is detailed in an issue related to the refactoring of the polyfill for the picture element, Picturefill: We are working to add an empty img element inside the picture element in issue #2220865: Add empty img element inside picture element to match up with the current version of the picture specification, and to ensure that the img displayed by the picture element (once supported by browsers) has a proper alt attribute.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |