Earlier quoted context omitted.
cloudflare is sponsoring. says it all.
What does that say?
It says that there's funding, which goes much further than hobbyists could.
Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
191–200 of 272 posts
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome on Android makes the web completely unusable without having access to uBlock, especially on resource constrained devices. Chrome on Windows doesn't allow the full version of uBlock Origin that still works on the YouTube website. It's just Google abusing its browser monopoly in the name of ad revenue.
Chrome on Android doesn't support extensions, but Blink does. One of the benefits to allowing modified browser engines.
Google has already shown that they will slowly and methodically use every lever at their disposal to nerf ad blocking, regardless of what the user base thinks.
It's the exact same playbook Microsoft is using to block users from logging onto their own computer without using an online Microsoft account.
Given that Google has already started working to limit sideloading on Android, those days seem limited.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#193Super impressive that an independent, non-corpo project has gotten this far this quickly.
I know what you meant by "non corpo", but the Ladybird organization is literally a corporation: https://ladybird.org/assets/documents/public-records/2024-03...
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is literally how a standard supposed to work: arrive at consensus and have two independent implementations before it can be claimed to be a standard. Or at the very least arrive at an API shape and hammer out obvious problems before shipping. Otherwise you get Internet Explorer, in reverse: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... Chrome literally doesn't even bother pretending that many o…
But is every feature in a browser supposed to be standardized? Like, it's against the rules somehow to develop features without asking permission from Apple and Mozilla?
It's not against the rules, but it is hostile to the web. Forking the web because a company is big enough to do so may sound just dandy to you, but to the rest of us who have spent decades working on interoperability it's a big middle finger.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll guess that the remaining 10% will take more than another 90%, and also that it will keep growing as time goes on. Web standards are becoming more complex every day.
This is one huge blindspot in the web spec process in my opinion. Any new spec is considered on the context of existing browsers and very little consideration seems to be given to the scope of the web standards as a whole.
Perhaps there should be levels of conformance and important businesses and government platforms should be required to work on all browsers that support at least level X, where level X is not everything and the kitchen sink, but really only the minimal stuff. No SPA, just forms and such basic things, accessibility should be very high and mandatory etc.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#196Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#197Along the same lines, the State of Utopia will be building a free web browser for everyone, once AI is strong enough to do so. Please feel free to vote on feature ideas here: https://pollunit.com/polls/ahysed74t8gaktvqno100g
> teleports the founder and his wife to the same location so they can be together in person holding hands - they're already in the same same city and want to meet immediately, so they are 99.98% of the way there! They're both working 10 hours a day to bridge the remaining 0.02%. Following this proof of concept, other people will also be allowed to date, however at the moment all dating is prohibited until the founder and his wife meet successfully.
Uhh.... I.... ok.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chrome can push back against proposals 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
OTOH, are all of the browsers supposed to move in lock step? Is chrome supposed to wait for everyone else's approval before launching any kind of feature?
And one of the browsers is maintained by an OS vendor that benefits from the lock-in that comes from native apps and rent seeking from their app store. I'm sure they would love to control the pace of browser innovation by just deciding not to implement certain features.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is every feature in a browser supposed to be standardized? Like, it's against the rules somehow to develop features without asking permission from Apple and Mozilla?
It's not against the rules, but it is hostile to the web. Forking the web because a company is big enough to do so may sound just dandy to you, but to the rest of us who have spent decades working on interoperability it's a big middle finger.
Allowing Apple to have a veto on which features are allowed to be added to a browser is even more hostile to the web.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
There are plenty of experts in our industry willing to help the government pen regulations. I'd gladly volunteer. 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.
> There are plenty of experts in our industry willing to help the government pen regulations. I'd gladly volunteer.
And there's no way, in general, to differentiate you (who I'm assuming to be a good-intentioned actual-expert) from someone who is either (a) not an expert or (b) not good-intentioned (i.e. a lobbyist) - so this offer is effectively useless, and the more general point of "there are experts that can help" is invalid.
I've been thinking about this problem a lot, because it is one that needs to be solved. But it's more complicated than just saying that "experts from the community can offer to help draft regulations" because the problem of how lawmakers can trust those offering help is very difficult.
...and that's assuming that the lawmakers are operating in good faith and accurately representing their constitutents' interests, which there is scientific research[1] that indicates is not true.
[1] https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/testin...