> it seems likely there will soon only be 1
What have I missed, will Firefox adopt Webkit?
WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
11–20 of 226 posts
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#12Funny to read this: > So there are only 2 web browser engines, and it seems likely there will soon only be 1, and making a whole new web browser from the ground up is effectively impossible because the browsers vendors have weaponized web standards complexity against any newcomers Ladybird seems to be thriving. Sure, they themselves only plan on releasing a beta version next year, but still. And it's even on the Hack…
What is ladybug's marketshare? Does it work flawlessly with "This webpage works better with Chrome" webpages?
It is not even mentioned on https://caniuse.com/?search=web%20components
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#13> So there are only 2 web browser engines, and it seems likely there will soon only be 1, and making a whole new web browser from the ground up is effectively impossible because the browsers vendors have weaponized web standards complexity against any newcomers. Maybe eventually someone will succeed and there will be 2 again. Best case. What a situation. The premise of this article seems completely wrong. Chromium, S…
[deleted]
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#14> So there are only 2 web browser engines, and it seems likely there will soon only be 1, and making a whole new web browser from the ground up is effectively impossible because the browsers vendors have weaponized web standards complexity against any newcomers. Maybe eventually someone will succeed and there will be 2 again. Best case. What a situation. The premise of this article seems completely wrong. Chromium, S…
> Chromium, Safari, Firefox. And a longtail of half implemented alternatives. But the point is that there are 3 independent browser engines that are fairly widely used.
Come on, you can't say that with a straight face.
Safari exists because Apple has a monopoly on iOS traffic, and therefore an financially significant portion of mobile traffic. As soon as their rigid fingers are pried loose of that (which we're seeing the beginnings of), that's gone.
Firefox is great, and I use it, but it has an insignificant market share.
The "longtail of half implemented alternatives" are by definition not alternatives.
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#15> it seems likely there will soon only be 1 What have I missed, will Firefox adopt Webkit?
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#16this might be in the way of alan kay's core idea, sending messages with interpreters. if we want to go all the way of the snowcrash pipe dream, then imagining objects with programs thrown around is more realistic than making it somehow work with html. on the other hand, in brings back bad memories of flash silverlight, java applets, that almost destroyed the open web. there is a beauty in easy-to-read text rather than binary blobs.
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#17> it seems likely there will soon only be 1 What have I missed, will Firefox adopt Webkit?
You've missed Firefox's marketshare inching towards irrelevance, its revenue - "charitable" donations from competitors worried about monopoly lawsuits that can stop at any time - in freefall, and more and more websites not working with anything other than Safari or Chrome.
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#18yeah, maybe, but I fear ad blocking would be much harder.
The most effective ad blocker is choosing not to use websites that display ads. That won't ever change.
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#19Might work as an application delivery platform but most web content is text
WASM blobs will make the web harder to index, link around, that doesn’t require a compile step, has a built in security model and all the other things that made the web easy to develop for and helped it to grow.
Can you imagine HN delivered as a WASM blob it would be awful…
P.S. How many people really understand canvas?
A WASM engine would end up having to implement some form of of markup renderer which we already have in the browser
Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)
#20The issue I first think about if HTML goes away and the web is WASM blobs instead is text. Accessibility, rendering, all the different languages. The amount of code in the browsers making HTML accessible and working in all languages is enormous. If we are going in that direction, we at least need a standard library handling this, so that we don’t take a big step back to the times of Flash.
I was thinking the same until they mentioned "WASI components" for using HTML. I'd still prefer HTML first though