Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | enomar's commentslogin

If you want to integrate GTM with your internal source control system, they have a programmatic API that you can tie into your build process:

https://developers.google.com/tag-manager/api/v1/

And if you want to lock down what kinds tags can run on your site, they have a nice whitelisting/blacklisting system that lets you block capabilities (e.g. customScripts to block arbitrary JS):

https://developers.google.com/tag-manager/devguide?hl=en#res...


Thanks for those links. Am I missing something in them or would using managing GTM programmatically via their API kind of defeat the entire purpose of giving business users like myself the ability to add/manage tags?

Seems like a case where there's no good way to have our cake and eat it too in terms of usability for business users and testing/security for our engineers.


Tagging is friction on Ad campaigns. Remove that friction and marketers can run more/better campaigns, thus spending more money with Google.


How do you know that Chrome and Safari are supported? Is there some documentation of this? A list somewhere? If so, Facebook should at least link to that page from here.


https://www.facebook.com/help/210310575676558

Interestingly, that page doesn't mention Opera.


No surprise there; Opera's market share is small enough that FB can simply code to the standard and worry about explicitly supporting the major browsers.

Although interestingly, if Opera accounts for ~2% of FB users (big if), then FB would have 16MM Opera users. Using the average of $4/user/year, that means Opera generates $64MM for them. That would be more than enough to justify throwing a few devs at.

Edit: Also curious is the pointless URL that page has. I would have thought FB would be using basic SEO on their help pages, so that someone googling "facebook supported browsers" would have a better chance at ranking first (it does for me, anyway). As an aside, the sub's page is actually the second result.


It's interesting because Opera is one of the links on the "unsupported browser" page.


I would actually posit that they make much less money per user from Opera than IE. Ie the type of individual who would click FB ads (or spend money on virtual gardens) is more likely to use the Windows default browser.


Because chome is 1. quite new and 2. auto-updating without neither asking or notifying users (and that is G-R-E-A-T).

Safari I don't know, are FB obligated to inform people of every possible choise? Nope, they aren't. Now let's discuss something more interesting than this dull facebook page!


> Because chome is 1. quite new and 2. auto-updating without neither asking or notifying users (and that is G-R-E-A-T).

You know that, but there's no guarantee whatsoever that someone landing on this page knows that.

It's in FB's best interest to inform people of what works and what doesn't. They certainly don't test every single browser out there, so putting the browsers they test on onto this page keeps users on the happy path.


FB really doesn't test all major browsers? That would be very surprising to me as there are only 5 or 6 major ones.


Agreed. But they shouldn't toss about the word "support" without they themselves being clear.

It isn't malicious, it isn't "stupid." It's "corporate." ("We'll fix it later.")



I don't know how well this works in practice, but it appears HTTP clients can force a check with the origin server if needed:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html

"...request with a "Cache-Control: max-age=0" directive (see section 14.9), to force a check with the origin server."


Any other info? I'm interested, but the "Why We Think Uber JS Rocks" section isn't quite enough to convince me to pay $10 to peek behind the curtain.


That quote doesn't appear to be specific to this post. It's on every page of the blog. For example:

http://itechtalks.blogspot.com/search/label/amazon


Ah, then it's a bad idea because it seems to be casting judgement on it. (And probably many other pages.)


"purchasing Android as a strategic response to the success of iOS"

Please don't make things up here. Google bought Android in 2005 [1]. The iPhone was announced in 2007 [2].

[1] http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc200...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone


But, bear in mind that the iPhone was only ANNOUNCED in 2007, not developed - in fact rumors of an iPad-like device (the basis of the iPhone interface) were circulating for almost a decade prior to the iPhone's announcement. During that time, Schmidt was on the board of Apple, and was certainly in a position to benefit from knowledge of Apple's mobile strategy.

So in short, it is plausible and likely that Apple began working on a touch screen phone years before Google even considered purchasing Android.

And correct me if I'm wrong but, weren't the early models of Google's phone based on a blackberry-like design with a half screen / half keyboard front? And wasn't it not until Apple unveiled the iPhone that Android began to take on its present form?


Sorry, you're exactly right. Should have looked it up.


Those people help make the web possible, and the web is a beautiful, world changing thing. I hope it won't be this way forever, but right now ads are part of the web's infrastructure; they pay the bills.


The document.cookie API has to be the worst API ever invented. I'd fix that and resolve the differences between JS and HTTP cookies.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: