51–60 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your version only works as long as there is only one browser.
How many die-hard Firefoxers run at least one Electron app?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If would be interesting if you could allow a site to "open as application" (instead of open in new tab) - or this could even be called "install". The site would then appear in your OS like any other app, and may or may not have some of the browser chrome (URL bar, tabs, navigation buttons) depending on the site. I currently have many pinned tabs - email, music - where I'd happily promote them to "apps". Even some of…
You can do this yourself in Chrome right now! Open the page you want to be an "app", and on the Chrome three-dot menu, select More Tools / Create Shortcut... Edit the name as you wish and check the "Open as window" checkbox, then click OK. Now you have a shortcut on your Start menu that works like any other app shortcut. You can pin it to the taskbar, save it to the desktop, any of the usual things. And when you open…
My theory is that many Electron apps don't really need Electron - they just need secure, constrained local file system access. Electron has massive potential security issues. Chrome with native file system access could make it possible for many of those Electron apps to simply be browser apps, making them vastly more secure and bringing them back into the domain of the ordinary web app. It's a hugely important new fe…
Your version only works as long as there is only one browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately Google don't seem to want to encourage plain HTML documents (instead the insane AMP shit). AMP is just plain HTML documents [0]. The only difference between an amp page and a standard HTML page are the following: 1. It includes the amp javascript library: ` `" rel="nofollow">https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"> ` 2. It contains amp within: ` ` 3. It must contain: ` `, has a ` `, a ` ` and specify ` `. 4…
1. AMP is not HTML5-compatible beginning with their amp declaration. 2. AMP is a set of web components that rely on JS to properly render. 3. If JS is disabled, page content is hidden by a CSS declaration 4. AMP pages are treated differently by the dominant search player So yes. On the surface it’s “just plain HTML page”. Technically .
Long ago, it was seen that Microsoft had the policy "our OS isn't finished if the competior's program is still functioning." Google's “OS” is effectively all the web resources they control and then they "accidentally" miss to support Apple's browsers. Especially when they manage to bring all the news content producers to use their “technology.”
AMP is evil. Behind seemingly “technical” solution is a huge additional monopolisation of the web by Google. Purely seen on that level it should be illegal. It’s in the interest of the society to allow the competition and disable the strengthening of the monopolies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes: https://github.com/WICG/native-file-system
https://wicg.github.io/native-file-system/ Editor: Marijn Kruisselbrink (Google) As you may be painfully aware of by now, "web standards process" means next to nothing if Google gets to decide the standards anyway.
Here's the draft of the accessibility API [1]. The two editors are from Mozilla. Does this mean that the process of defining this API, gathering feedback, iterating and publishing it "means next to nothing" because folks from other organisations didn't chip in?
[1] - https://wicg.github.io/historical-a11yapi/taxonomy.html
Browsers need a bright line between documents (HTML and CSS) and applications (electron-like, notifications, complex APIs, access to features that affect the user's security). Plain HTML documents are SEO friendly, are a11y friendly almost by default, back/forward navigation works, and HTML doesn't chew battery and bandwidth on JavaScript. For our web app the biggest pain points are: security (hard to integrate third…
> Unfortunately Google don't seem to want to encourage plain HTML documents (instead the insane AMP shit). AMP is just plain HTML documents [0]. The only difference between an amp page and a standard HTML page are the following: 1. It includes the amp javascript library: ` `" rel="nofollow">https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"> ` 2. It contains amp within: ` ` 3. It must contain: ` `, has a ` `, a ` ` and specify ` `. 4…
Browsers need a bright line between documents (HTML and CSS) and applications (electron-like, notifications, complex APIs, access to features that affect the user's security). Plain HTML documents are SEO friendly, are a11y friendly almost by default, back/forward navigation works, and HTML doesn't chew battery and bandwidth on JavaScript. For our web app the biggest pain points are: security (hard to integrate third…
Browsers need a bright line between documents (HTML and CSS) and applications (electron-like, notifications, complex APIs, access to features that affect the user's security). Glad that somebody else sees this. This muddling together of a perfectly good hypertext browser and a poor man's operating system is really not a Good Thing. Just think about the difficulty web "applications" have dealing with something like fu…
Or like GMail does with CTRL+. - it doesn't even use it for anything, but it still eats the key sequence, preventing me from interacting with Multi-Account Containers on Firefox. I think I might have even seen sites breaking CTRL+TAB or CTRL+SHIFT+TAB, but can't find an example now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of them just need to be on the taskbar/notification area and not in a browser tab, honestly.
If would be interesting if you could allow a site to "open as application" (instead of open in new tab) - or this could even be called "install". The site would then appear in your OS like any other app, and may or may not have some of the browser chrome (URL bar, tabs, navigation buttons) depending on the site. I currently have many pinned tabs - email, music - where I'd happily promote them to "apps". Even some of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many die-hard Firefoxers run at least one Electron app?
Not sure what's your point but I would prefer my Electron apps to run with Firefox's engine if possible since it's the browser I mainly use, it would use much less memory.