Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

servo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#101

Post by rektide »

Cyphase wrote: post #64
rektide wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wrote a long post about web platform & balance of power. And this is like 3000% more the real feels of the situation. I really really hope it pans out & delivers. But it properly & rightly should be an ever shrinking piece of the puzzle. It underpins it all & flexility here would be key, better tech (parallelizable!) very empowering, put to the sword many criticisms, but yeah: it's an ever shrinking factor ver…

Towards a Modern Web Stack https://docs.google.com/document/d/1peUSMsvFGvqD5yKh3GprskLC...

Also submitted & commented on a number of times,

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Thanks for the helpful linking. Was getting a bit sloppy last night with the posting.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#102

Post by rektide »

charcircuit wrote: post #62
linuxandrew wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google/Blink consistently pushes for bad things like EME, FLoC and Topics API. They have a very different vision of the web where users live in a corporate playground and complex browser engines which only a few large corps can manage. At this point what is making the web a better platform? The web has feature overload, even with features like Server Push which are seldom used. FWIW I think there are some exciting po…

>pushes for bad things like EME, FLoC and Topics API EME is better than browsers having to implement their own proprietary APIs for DRM. If EME didn't exist DRM would still be used by sites like Netflix. >FLoC and Topics API These are better for privacy than learning interests by tracking via third party cookies. These are moves to retain the positive uses of the web while increasing people's privacy. >At this point…

What an echo chamber. People are so desperate to hate, want to hate. Any outside view is just blasted away on this complex situations.

I do personally think p2p is absolutely key to unlocking a future where users are not so beholden. It creates a much more connected web, versus the ultra-federalized model. Yes there are drawbacks but simply turning our backs on connecting people, deciding the web is just going to stay hosted forever and ever, is a huge denial of galaxies of potential. We won't know how far we can go until we try, until we begin.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#103

Post by rektide »

quantumwoke wrote: post #42
rektide wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a huge company of hundreds of competing ideas. I think most no one has any respect or appreciation for the circumstance flocs & topic Api was raised in. The dogfucker skanks at Internet Advertising Bureau were actively pushing government regulators to replace cookies with some gobshit anti user trash, far worse. I genuinely feel for Google. No one sees or knows any of the other context going down at the time, bu…

While I think your viewpoint is interesting, the language prevented me from appreciating it fully. Would you mind expanding on your opinion on privacy and Mozilla/Apple’s role in the standards process a little more?

It feels shallow to me to let oneself be rebuffed by such petty small barbs. I try to follow the "Highest Form of Disagreement," to find the best interpretations of things first. Rather than let small fry shit cause roadblocks in my mind.

Your ask about Moz/Safari I've said quite a few words on elsewhere in this post & on others. I think the far more interesting topic is what a bunch of jackal villains the IAB is. I cannot stress enough how hard a time Google has had trying to preserve any privacy on the net when there is a huge lobbyist group close to regulators pushing so hard to end user privacy. These people have the worst most anti-user outlook imaginable, are up to absolutely no good. My strong language is a just a start on describing how awful the IAB is & what sinister monsters Google has to go to the mat & wrestle to try to preserve user privacy in a post 3rd party cookie world.

Personally I don't think it's right that I get flagged for my previous reply, but I'm glad to have made a better go at my reply this time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35565707

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#104

Post by sfink »

bfgeek wrote: post #28
Centigonal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumb question: if CSS is under-specified and everyone designs their sites for Chrome, could we analyze Chromium's CSS rendering code and use that to create a more well-defined CSS spec which other browsers can implement?

The issue with this approach is that it would encode all the bugs and quirks into the specification which isn't a good idea. (I'm an engineer on Blink's layout engine). We've recently finished re-architecting Blink's layout engine, part of the reason why we did this investment was we were concerned that we couldn't fix WebKit era bugs (e.g. too many sites would depend on them due to our shared heritage). This makes o…

And this is kind of a huge deal. 3 different implementations rather than 2 is kind of like the old saying "never go to sea with two chronometers, take one or three".

I'm not saying Blink exactly matched WebKit anymore, before your re-architecture. But it shared a lot.

If you have a difference in behavior between 2 implementations, then it's easy to see think of it as saying one or the other is right. And which one is right will be partly influenced by the amount of exposure the feature has had, multiplied by market share. Which is not a great criterion to use if you want a spec that hangs together, especially if a reimagining like Servo is going to come along and rub against the grain of every arbitrary decision ever made.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#105

Post by andrewmcwatters »

jeroenhd wrote: post #76
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #5

None of this would be so difficult if the CSS specifications were well defined. But they’re not, so we all have to more or less guess what the intrinsic algorithms for drawing fundamental aspects of the web are supposed to be. Such a failure of the CSS specs.

I've watched videos about implementing CSS fixes in Ladybird ( https://www.youtube.com/@awesomekling ) and whenever the web specs get pulled up, I find them pretty clear most of the time. There's a lot of context required if you want to read the details about one specific thing, but all the necessary context is usually linked and readily available if you need it. That complexity does lead to bugs (and bugs in Chrome…

WHATWG doesn't control the box model specification or layout. There is officially no CSS processing model. The specifications are detailed implicitly.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#106

Post by andrewmcwatters »

rektide wrote: post #26
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #5

None of this would be so difficult if the CSS specifications were well defined. But they’re not, so we all have to more or less guess what the intrinsic algorithms for drawing fundamental aspects of the web are supposed to be. Such a failure of the CSS specs.

Really? The spec might maybe be hard? Perhaps? I don't know for sure. But there is a long long long legacy of CSS Acid Tests that have been very well established & expected, that should guide most implementations to success. I forget what it's called but a bunch of the major browsers get together each year & find a couple things to agree to focus on & make happen each year. Trying to just play catchup & go through th…

The old Web Standards Compliance Acid Tests aren't used by implementors.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#107

Post by rektide »

illiarian wrote: post #49
rektide wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like 18 months ago Safari launched a "look at us we are so great, we don't support these long list of web apis; isn't chrome evil" and Moz joined in like two days latter repeating the exact same claims in an obviously coordinated negativity-campaign. Web USB, web Bluetooth, web midi, ambient light sensor, bunch of other sensors. I'm sorry I really want to find the links & show this off more. It was the most boldfaced…

That's a lot of demagoguery mascarading as fact. What really happens is that Mozilla brings multiple well-argued objections (Safari, too) that span both technical and non-technical reasons, but Chrome just releases its half-baked non-standards and calls it a day.

I see the demagoguery going the other way.

Fear Uncertainty & Doubt are being used again and again to obstruct basic sensible user asks like being able to use Arduino Web Editor or work with their midi keyboard. Fear is the worst demagoguery of all.

Put it behind a permission! Only turn it on if the user installs a PWA! The idea that Moz/Safari know better than to give users what they want, to deny the web basic possibilities: that is demagoguery. It was never based in sound perspective.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#108

Post by BoorishBears »

illiarian wrote: post #88
BoorishBears wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even understand the term but you're being so dismissive. Maybe read the full thread and then comment. By definition their stance is 100% about "a big web". It's an ideology that the browser shouldn't become another OS competing vs one that it should. And while one side of the conversation tends to see their approach as 100% correct, the history was people downloading random exes with 0 sandboxing to do 99%…

> You don't even understand the term "Big web" isn't a term. It's some vague unspecified idea that you may have. > By definition their stance is 100% about "a big web". By what definition? > It's an ideology that the browser shouldn't become another OS competing vs one that it should. Of course this is not Firefox's stance.

I replied to a comment that states:

> There's no real debate because 2/3 players actively believe & push for a small web. It's a miserable rock & hard place situation, trying to figure out what to do when there's only one ayer who believes in a web platform at all.

And dozens of replies have all managed to understand what they meant. They didn't need to define small vs big web because for those familiar with the subject matter it's a pretty intuitive way to describe the two opposing ideologies

Not every comment can be written for every reader. Which is why I recommended you read more of the thread to gain some understanding before replying.

-

> Of course this is not Firefox's stance.

The "of course" is unnecessarily condescending and simply doesn't follow. Firefox OS was code named "Boot to Gecko"... as in boot into Mozilla's browser engine. Mozilla openly stated they'd push for new Web APIs to enable it.

https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.dev.platform/c/dmip1GpD5...

For a long time all the major players were for a "big web", it's no coincidence that the only one left pushing is the only one that didn't abandon their personal web based platform.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#109

Post by rektide »

illiarian wrote: post #48
zarzavat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. The amount of FUD Mozilla spread about Web MIDI was truly distasteful. People say that Google is the enemy, and perhaps they are. But at least Google does not write off entire groups of users (like musicians) because of a swivel-eyed security paranoia. If I wanted a paternalistic entity telling me what I can and can’t do with my device, I’d use an iPad.

> The amount of FUD Mozilla spread about Web MIDI was truly distasteful. As in: everything they said is true, and the moment they launched it they found it's used for fingerprinting (and Google doesn't even hide it behind a permission prompt)

But putting capabilities behind permission isn't what Apple or Moz considered.

> Finally, if we find that features and web APIs increase fingerprintability and offer no safe way to protect our users, we will not implement them

https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-priv...

Strangling the web platform to keep users safe, forcing them onto much less secure much more invasive apps is not justified nor reasonable. Watching Mozilla adopt the same condescending paternalistic platform murdering "protect the children" absolutist authoritarianism with no possible consideration or affordances was a sad sad sad week. It's extremely reckless & hostile behavior, at deep deep deep injury to making so many great futures possible.

Post reply on HN