190
Google Chrome coders really, truly, absolutely ready to cull third-party cookies from 2024
(www.theregister.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
190 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
13 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any CDN worth its salt can run on your domain so that's not an issue. The issue is that no third-party anything is pointless as links will just change from nyt.adnetwork.com to adnetwork.nyt.com. I'd rather not encourage those kinds of DNS shenanigans.
What about a CDN for JS libraries?
What about YouTube embeds?
What about images from Imgur?
Why should all of this be handled by me, on my domain?
You'd tell cloudflare DNS "yo put your stuff on cloudflare-cdn.mydomain.foo". Embeds should be iframes, that is, different webpages, imgur could do the same though yes it's overkill. Another option would imgur offering an automated API that would allow cloudflare DNS to tell it "here's a key, please get ready to serve on imgur-cdn.mydomain.foo".
It can all be handled on your domain without you actually running the backing servers. It's also insanity.
Running a CDN on your domain effectively defeats the purpose of CDN.
No. Things being on your domain doesn't mean that traffic hits your servers.
It doesn't, but it defeats the purpose of CDN, because your users still hit your domain instead of CDN one and cannot leverage the benefits of distributed caching. Browser cache is bound to a URL, you change one letter and it is invalidated.
Why would the URL change?
It won't share js libraries and fonts and whatnot cross-site but compared to a single image that should be negligible. At least if you don't pull in gazillions of superfluous dependencies and don't even run dead code elimination over them. And anyway that's more bandwith usage between user and CDN, not user and you.
Also I already said that it's insanity. But it would work.
Because you're not using a CDN URL everyone else is.
Savings are massive for the user. If you don't care about your users, please stop doing anything development related.
You know what's faster than a CDN? Vanilla js.
And how often do I have to repeat that it's insanity? It's just that user network traffic doesn't even come close to the top of reasons why it's a bad idea.
Insanity is what you have in your head.
I wasn't the one advocating to outlaw cross-site everything. I only said that it could be made to work... not well, but still. Also that it's a bad idea. Do you disagree with that?
But yes I'm also insane how could you tell.