831–840 of 876 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine we'll seem them "come out in support" by quietly deploying the feature in their browsers.
Apparently the proposal is working its way through the W3C, so they'll have to take official and public positions on it eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My former business bank actually did this. They insisted their web app "was compatible with all modern browsers, but more compatible with Chrome" - I couldn't make transfers to other accounts with Firefox, it just hung indefinitely. Virgin Money, UK - https://uk.virginmoney.com/
> was compatible with all modern browsers, but more compatible with Chrome Is Animal Farm not required reading in Orwell's home country? Or was that a misquote, or maybe just something from a random support worker? It's almost too on the nose for that statement to be written by someone familiar with that book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a website doesn’t work in Firefox (due to a bug in Firefox or the website or because the website blocks Firefox), please file a bug report on https://webcompat.com/ Mozilla developers will then try to reach out to the website’s owners, add a fix or workaround in Firefox, or (as a last resort) spoof Chrome’s User-Agent string to bypass the website’s Firefox block.
In some sense, doesn't the existence of that site kind of strongly indicate that the GP's point is correct. That there are spotty incompatibilities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... the best place to shame?
> the best place to shame? Please don't do this here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. Edit: I suppose I need to add—no, we're not pro-$MegaCorp or pro-$web-destroying-dystopia. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck, and you guys need to make your substantive points without degenerating into mob behavior. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This proposal is just so throughly user-hostile that it's impossible to criticise it based on technical grounds. It's not a bad proposal, it's a dangerous, evil and malicious one, so criticising it in details is futile. The whole thing in itself is evil, and it needs to be thrown out. Quietly protesting won't work this time, the goal is to kick up a huge fuss which gets the attention of governments, regulatory bodies…
How is this feature hostile to Googles users? There is genuine benefit from websites allowing you to do more things via their website (vs their app). Also: fewer/no Captchas, fewer bots on social media The platforms most people use will see benefits. Apple users apparently already do. I understand the argument that the open source experience will get worse. But frankly, google.com will still work for you. It will be…
Your personal opinion may well be that ‘this is fine’ but by failing to declare that bias and having never posted much of anything else it is difficult to interpret your actions as a good faith contribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the best place to shame? Please don't do this here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. Edit: I suppose I need to add—no, we're not pro-$MegaCorp or pro-$web-destroying-dystopia. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck, and you guys need to make your substantive points without degenerating into mob behavior. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Understood. Sorry about that. Shoulda known better.
As someone who is a somewhat new to web technologies, can someone really explain why this is bad? I saw the techical discussions in the PRs made to the WEI repo but it was all super technical that I was not able to understand the arguments made for and against it.
WEI turns non-compliant browsers into second-class citizens. You’re perfectly free to use whatever compliant browser engine and OS combo you like today – but in a world with WEI, you’ll have to use Approved Chrome on an Approved OS on Approved Hardware with Approved Signing Keys, or you won’t be able to sign into your bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do origin trials (behind flags) for all new features. They still release a bunch of them later without any consensus etc.
Sure, but not all (or even most) chrome features are web standards, so it makes sense that those are deployed without consensus, because there isn't anyone to get consensus with.
And this particular feature? They want to pretend it's s standard. You don't create a spec proposal for a feature you don't just develop internslly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's far, far too late for this. The W3C is already irrelevant, not that it ever mattered much. The internet is made by big companies. Not standards bodies. The WHATWG has the actual living standards, and Google, Apple, Cloudflare and Amazon make the actual software. Nobody cares about the W3C. And Mozilla is long past dead.
> And Mozilla is long past dead. I have been using Netscape/Mozilla, in terms of heritage, ideology, and codebase, for almost a third of a century now. I was there 30 years ago using NCSA Mosaic when it was first released for the VMS Vax system. The only break of any kind I had was with Opera as a secondary browser in the few short years between Netscape 4 and Phoenix (original Firefox). And I was still using Netscap…