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

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#81

Post by BoorishBears »

illiarian wrote: post #65
BoorishBears wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the prototypical example of their stance is: you can argue their resistance was justified. If you believe in a big web it was not justified, otherwise it was, as the original comment was asking for an example of.

Their stance has nothing to do with a "belief in a big web", whatever "big web" is.

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% of what SPAs offer today, so there's merit to both trains of thought.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#82

Post by madeofpalk »

Dalewyn wrote: post #71
madeofpalk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the point of that if no browser would support it? See also, https://wiki.csswg.org/faq#versioning-css-fixing-design-mist...

I'm not sure what you're getting at? The browser landscape today is composed of practically just one browser: Chrome. It is easier than ever to get browsers (read: Chrome) to implement different rendering schemes based on identifiers or descriptors provided by web devs. Supporting the latest and greatest is a great marketing ploy, browsers (read: Chrome) are incentivized to support them. Browsers that don't will be f…

I think it is a very bad idea for a single browser vendor to deliberately subvert standards process and attempt to steamroll the web with their own proprietary tech!

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#83

Post by nicoburns »

Centigonal wrote: post #8
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.

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?

In many cases has already happened (although most of it was written when IE, Firefox and Opera were the browsers to align with and Chrome just implemented the spec). There are bits that are still underspecified, but work is already ongoing to specify those.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#84

Post by sanitycheck »

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…

> If EME didn't exist DRM would still be used by sites like Netflix.

(Playing devil's advocate just a little here...)

...and maybe it'd be cumbersome/difficult/annoying for users, opening the door for big changes in the landscape.

Spotify-like streaming services for music (basically the same stuff everywhere, just choose where you get it from) only exist because they had to compete with the ease of getting DRM-free music free from P2P services.

The acceptance of easy standardised DRM for video has led to movie streaming services being the modern equivalent of the old cable networks. You want to watch X? You must subscribe to Netflix. But Y? Y is only available on Disney. Z? Amazon.

Personally I don't care. I've implemented EME and proprietary DRM playback numerous times, and I don't subscribe to any streaming services because I find 99% of TV/movies to be not worth my time. For people who do care though, EME is probably net negative.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#85

Post by Dalewyn »

madeofpalk wrote: post #82
Dalewyn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? The browser landscape today is composed of practically just one browser: Chrome. It is easier than ever to get browsers (read: Chrome) to implement different rendering schemes based on identifiers or descriptors provided by web devs. Supporting the latest and greatest is a great marketing ploy, browsers (read: Chrome) are incentivized to support them. Browsers that don't will be f…

I think it is a very bad idea for a single browser vendor to deliberately subvert standards process and attempt to steamroll the web with their own proprietary tech!

You're still not getting it. When there's only one browser to care about, it's easy to get it to support the latest and greatest standard.

W3C comes out with HTML6? Not supporting that would be terrible marketing, especially if other then-irrelevant browsers adopt it.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#87

Post by zagrebian »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #56
dralley wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, until a few months ago.

Who is using it at this point; or planning to use it?

It’s not ready for use yet. I guess the idea is R&D. Come up with new approaches and solutions. Experiment with different things. The current major browser engines are probably quite constrained because it’s important that they remain stable, so they can’t just make drastic changes. Experimentation is good. I hope Servo comes up with innovative new solutions.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#88

Post by illiarian »

BoorishBears wrote: post #81
illiarian wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their stance has nothing to do with a "belief in a big web", whatever "big web" is.

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.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#89

Post by madeofpalk »

Dalewyn wrote: post #85
madeofpalk wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a very bad idea for a single browser vendor to deliberately subvert standards process and attempt to steamroll the web with their own proprietary tech!

You're still not getting it. When there's only one browser to care about, it's easy to get it to support the latest and greatest standard. W3C comes out with HTML6? Not supporting that would be terrible marketing, especially if other then-irrelevant browsers adopt it.

No I get it, but it strongly disagree.

I care about more than one browser.

Re: Layout 2013 and Layout 2020

#90

Post by ta8903 »

zarzavat wrote: post #72
illiarian wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

Anything can be used for fingerprinting. Your GPU can be used for fingerprinting. Your fonts can be used for fingerprinting. MIDI is so far down the list of fingerprinting threats. If Mozilla are really serious about fingerprinting then they need to remove right now and make every website render in Times New Roman. Fingerprinting cannot be solved by disabling browser features in a standard browser. It can be mitigate…

Pretty sure canvas is blocked by setting resistFingerprinting to true.
Post reply on HN