I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode.
"We're not doing as the spec tells us to, BUT that probably gives us performance gains, most users don't care about it anyway, I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead (!?)..."
Why so much resistance?
Our designer was pissed off when we discovered this bug, which explained why Chrome was the only program that displayed RGB values differently from all the others (not just browsers). She'd been careful about standardizing and tweaking colors we already used to work better for people with colorblindness, much of which was thrown out the window on Chrome. Not to mention issues matching the PNGs and SVGs she created for the site.
Quick edit:
> Why so much resistance?
Comment 34:
> Chromium developers have previously stated this won't be supported for reasons mentioned in this old post.
> https://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/
From that link (posted in 2006):
> The big hurdle that we ran into, though, was with the drawing we did not control, namely the Flash plug-in. The problem is that designers specify colors in Flash and colors in CSS in the Web page, and they expect those colors to match. Because Flash’s drawing isn’t correcting to sRGB, if we did it in Safari, there would be color mismatches all over the place. These mismatches look far worse than if we just don’t correct at all.
Isn't Flash gone from Chrom(ium) now?
Wow. Just wow. I have rarely seen so much ignorance. And this exactly why Chrome is cancer for the whole internet. I mean, seriously, why should the web developers fix something that is standardized just to make it work in Chrome? And fixing the JPEG standard...?
[1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=667431
[0] https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X
It's basically racketeering.
If you're keen on using chromium with manifest v2 add-ons, Vivaldi and Microsoft edge are both options to keep in mind.
Edge hasn't been released yet.
Vivaldi UI is a buggy and slow mess (I invite you to try it yourself)
(They are both based on Chromium....)
Advertisers are already figuring out how to get around that. CNAME cloacking, proxying with same domain, etc.
This idea of removing usability in the name of safety has gone way, way too far. It was crap when Mozilla did it, it's crap when Apple does it.
1. Extensions in the app store are not easily searchable. They aren't indexed/sorted on the store properly, and many only show up on Google.
2. Many of the good extensions are no longer available, e.g., UBO and KeePass, Vimium (there is a Vim extension, but it's a poor replacement so far).
3. The store promotes junkware and throwaway extensions.
Quote:
In July 2018, uBlock.org was acquired by AdBlock,[19] and began allowing "Acceptable Ads",[20] a program run by Adblock Plus that allows some ads which are deemed "acceptable", and the publisher pays Adblock Plus.[21]
EndQuote
uBlock was the original tool but was handed over to another maintainer some time ago. The original developer of uBlock, being unhappy with the direction of the tool, forked the repo and made uBlock Origin which he maintains and is often considered the better product by people here
Latest on Keychain sopport is in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106400#c130 as WONTFIX due to macOS changes.