11–20 of 60 posts
The ` ` element in SVG can target an external source and clone it into the shadow DOM. However, there is a bug that prevents it from copying certain elements resulting in an unexpected SVG. One commenter puts it into perspective: "How is this still not fixed 10 years later? This bug is now just as old as Voyager 1 leaving the solar system or Lana Del Rey debut album. We went through an entire Spider Man reboot cycle…
A developer running in to problems trying to use this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean that commenter also didn't fix it in the last ten years. Chromium is open source isn't it? Maybe the commenter is less than ten years old. Otherwise they have as little excuse as the rest of us.
> Chromium is open source isn't it? Being open source doesn't mean that you can contribute to it at all. In this particular case, Google does actually take contributions, but only from people who signed their CLA, and many people aren't going to agree to that.
Amateurs, Firefox has 20+ year old bugs open and just recently fixed an 18 year old one.
[1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1790500 [2]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1792598
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chromium is open source isn't it? Being open source doesn't mean that you can contribute to it at all. In this particular case, Google does actually take contributions, but only from people who signed their CLA, and many people aren't going to agree to that.
What would happen if you throw a patch into their discussion without signing CLA and with WTFPL license? Can someone else take that patch and resubmit it with proper procedure? Sounds like a good approach if you want bug fixed but don't want to sign any agreements.
So, if you did that it'd probably be worse than useless because it might hamper the legal adoption of identical or near-identical code if the fix was such that there was essentially only one decent solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chromium is open source isn't it? Being open source doesn't mean that you can contribute to it at all. In this particular case, Google does actually take contributions, but only from people who signed their CLA, and many people aren't going to agree to that.
What would happen if you throw a patch into their discussion without signing CLA and with WTFPL license? Can someone else take that patch and resubmit it with proper procedure? Sounds like a good approach if you want bug fixed but don't want to sign any agreements.
Seems like the guy from Opera has implemented the first 90% of it. Now only the remaining 90% left.
Seems like the guy from Opera has implemented the first 90% of it. Now only the remaining 90% left.
Browser engineers have an extremely difficult job. The codebase is incredibly complex (they aren't just copying data from one system to another - it takes years to get up to speed in just a small area of the codebase) - any change (even improvements/fixes) risks breaking websites.
You might think you are complaining to a faceless organization, but in reality your really just talking to 1-2 people. Be kind. Each time an engineers gets dumped on you risk them throwing in the towel for good (engineer burnout is real), your bug will very much not be fixed then.
Engineers like fs@ are one of a kind and experts in their area. (fs@ implemented SVG favicons to Chromium for example - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=294179 ). As the web platform is so expansive there are really only a few people in the world at one time who understand various problems deeply enough to make progress on a fix.
What does help? In this particular case - if you are affected by this bug starring it helps. If you can kindly describe how this affects you - that also helps. The Chromium project actively tracks highly starred bugs. (Keep in mind the project also takes into account "gaming" the count so getting 100 people to star the bug mindlessly wont help).