141–150 of 272 posts
Super impressive that an independent, non-corpo project has gotten this far this quickly.
And in that sense, is it better than Gecko with firefox, which is non-profit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government(s) need to force Google to obey web standards that are set by an industry consortium. One that also has small player participation as a requirement. If Google is strong arming or pushing ahead their own agenda, the standards body should have plenty enough votes to veto. And for teeth, compliance should be a requirement for Google to even be allowed to have its own browser. If they break it, no more bro…
The government and most voters don't even know what a file is. They can't even vote in favor of their own basic needs like health care. Do you really think this band of incompetents should be empowered to strangle innovation?
Google isn't your friend.
If you're a consumer, they're limiting choice.
If you're a startup or midcap, they're in your way.
I expect startups to out-innovate once the giants get a regulatory buzz cut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you bringing this up, when it’s not been implemented as a metric here, but because Apple requires it for iOS.
> but because Apple requires it for iOS Therefore it is a metric used by Apple.
As someone who's been quite heavily involved with web-platform-tests, I'd caution against any use of the test pass rate as a metric for anything. That's not to belittle the considerable achievements of Ladybird; their progress is really impressive, and if web-platform-tests are helping their engineering efforts I consider that a win. New implementations of the web platform, including Ladybird, Servo, and Flow, are ex…
The tweet mentions that this is an arbitrary metric thrust upon them by Apple, so I don’t think they would necessarily disagree with you. During the monthly updates they do also show the passing number of tests without including the encoding tests because of how much they skew things.
Super impressive that an independent, non-corpo project has gotten this far this quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but because Apple requires it for iOS Therefore it is a metric used by Apple.
In the spirit of malicious compliance, thus being a bad metric would probably be a feature in their book.
Web Platform Tests were literally a project to align browsers on compatible implementations of a bunch of web APIs. Started by Opera and w3c and maintained by w3c https://www.bocoup.com/blog/wpt-an-overview-and-history
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I haven't tried it myself, I've seen a few of the monthly summaries videos. Passing the tests and being fast enough for daily usage is two very different things and right now Ladybird doesn't appear to be all that speedy. Still an amazing feat of development from the entire team.
I was going to say the same thing. Why are the tests so disconnected from the usability? My assumption is the tests are closer to a unit test, while browsing a page is essentially an E2E test, and if anything in the pipeline goes wrong (especially given that we use complex JS everywhere) the result is essentially useless.
Super impressive that an independent, non-corpo project has gotten this far this quickly.
It is nuts, when you think about how much a browser does, it is a crazy feat. Just building a good html/css renderer and a JS engine is crazy, but now you are hooked into the ecosystem and at the mercy of whatever comes next. Chrome can push back against proposals but little browsers either use chromium or are basically in a riptide trying to make sure they keep up.
The problem isn't Chrome pushing back proposals. The problem is Chrome pushing ahead with its own proposals regardless of anyone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45371575
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is nuts, when you think about how much a browser does, it is a crazy feat. Just building a good html/css renderer and a JS engine is crazy, but now you are hooked into the ecosystem and at the mercy of whatever comes next. Chrome can push back against proposals but little browsers either use chromium or are basically in a riptide trying to make sure they keep up.
The government(s) need to force Google to obey web standards that are set by an industry consortium. One that also has small player participation as a requirement. If Google is strong arming or pushing ahead their own agenda, the standards body should have plenty enough votes to veto. And for teeth, compliance should be a requirement for Google to even be allowed to have its own browser. If they break it, no more bro…
Chrome has the best compliance with standards of any of the big three (see wpt.fyi) - which is not surprising, because they also have the most engineering time dedicated to their browser, and the most people working on standards.
These bodies require buy in from multiple vendors, but generally not unanimity. That said, browsers can and do ship things which haven't been standardized (e.g. WebUSB, which is still only a draft because only Chrome wants to ship it). In a lot of cases this pretty much has to happen pre-standardization, because it is difficult to come up with a good standard from the ivory tower with no contact with actual use. Chrome is unusually good about working in public to develop specifications for such features even when other browsers aren't currently interested in shipping them.
I don't know what problem you think this proposal would solve.