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

Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 272 posts

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#201

Post by JimDabell »

nerdix wrote: post #199
asadotzler wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple doesn’t have a veto. If two independent implementations are required for something to become a web standard, all Google have to do is convince anybody outside of Google to implement their specs, such as Mozilla – who Google pay billions of dollars to.

The problem with all of these new specifications is that Google can’t convince anybody to do this, no matter how much money they throw at them. That’s not an Apple veto stopping these things from becoming standards, that’s Google pushing shitty specs.

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#202

Post by culi »

jgraham wrote: post #112

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…

Everything you said sounds very reasonable, yet the "Browser-Specific Failures" graph on the main page of the wpt.fyi website explicitly misleads us into thinking

PS I'm a big fan of the work and appreciate what you do. I check the interop page about once a week!

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#203

Post by culi »

ac29 wrote: post #193
pizlonator wrote: post #6

Super 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...

A nonprofit corporation

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#204

Post by culi »

jppittma wrote: post #160
troupo wrote: post #148

Earlier 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?

I wouldn't say stuff like Manifest V2 is "new features". A lot of what Chrome is pushing is just to support its commercial interests.

We've kinda come full circle. Web standards were made to prevent what happened when Internet Explorer ruled the world but now a corporation has near-monopoly browser share and is driving the web standards themselves

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#205

Post by phire »

oblio wrote: post #184
troupo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, there's no other good metric. We used to have Acid tests for CSS, but in absence of that, it's as good metric as any.

Are Acid tests no longer available?

Acid 2 bakes in the assumption that you will be displaying it on a desktop/laptop monitor with 100% scaling; It depends on pixel accuracy.

This was a reasonably universal assumption in 2005, but became less and less valid over time, we now have high-dpi screens and the whole idea of pixel accuracy has fallen out of favour (it was never a good idea, but 2005) as phone browsers are expected to rescale websites for better readability/usability.

The result is that Acid 2 fails on my phone, and on my laptop it will pass/fail depending on which screen the window is on.

Acid 3 was too forwards looking and rigid. While Acid 2 was (mostly) testing accepted standards (which IE6 implemented very poorly), Acid 3 tested a bunch of draft standards. It was very strict on many things that weren't well defined and later versions of the standards took the opposite approach.

Basically, Acid 2 was very good at shaming Microsoft into fixing Internet Explorer; But in the long run the whole concept of popular cherry picked torture tests proved to be of limited usefulness (and actually counterproductive) to promoting standards compliant browsers.

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#206

Post by anextio »

fmajid wrote: post #143
hamandcheese wrote: post #134

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.

Malicious compliance?

The EU DMA says they have to allow third party browser engines access to the same resources (the JIT) that Safari has. It specifically allows them to place reasonable requirements on those third party alternatives:

> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

Access to rwx memory is inherently dangerous, and it's completely reasonable to expect third parties to have proven that they are serious about producing a usable browser engine before putting such a risky product on the market for consumers to download. The law does not require them to allow any third party application to access the JIT, only a third party application that competes with Safari (a usable web browser).

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#207

Post by rs186 »

jppittma wrote: post #160
troupo wrote: post #148

Earlier 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?

I think the word "standard" carries a certain meaning.

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#208

Post by zaphirplane »

MatthiasPortzel wrote: post #102
daft_pink wrote: post #31

I think it’s just fantastic that the Ladybird browser is close to being usable. I was under the impression this was going to take many years before it became competitive.

Three years ago I was very skeptical of Ladybird. But two things have changed. First, they have funding for 8 full time engineers, which I definitely wasn’t expecting. Second, it’s been three years. So given that, I am more optimistic. There’s still a very long way before they can compete with Chrome, of course. And I’m not sure I ever understood the value proposition compared to forking an existing engine.

Who is backing it ? That’s a bit of money Nm can see the list, wonder what’s in it for those companies

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#209

Post by nicoburns »

troupo wrote: post #144
tssva wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is, there's no other good metric. We used to have Acid tests for CSS, but in absence of that, it's as good metric as any.

Some modern ACID-style tests are a nice idea actually.

Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests

#210

Post by nicoburns »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #99
liquid_thyme wrote: post #69

I wish them well, but browsers are very much pay-to-play. Google had to pay their way to their current dominant position.

Pay? You mean putting the "you are using X, why not try chrome" adtext everywhere for every search result?

More like having a team of between 1000 and 1500 full time software engineers working on it over a period of more than a decade.
Post reply on HN