WHATWG HTML Standard VS WebKit

WHAT-WG HTML

There's a long-standing WHATWG feature request open for it here: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2791

And several userland custom element implementation, like https://www.npmjs.com/package//html-include-element

One of the cool things that you can do with client-side includes and shadow DOM is render the included HTML into a shadow root that has s, so that the child content of the include element is slotted into a shell implemented by the included HTML.

This lets you do things like have the main page be the pre-page content and the included HTML be a heavily cached site-wide shell, and then another per-user include with personalized HTML - all cached appropriately.

As mentioned by others, OK idea, but not a fan that this isn't standardized. After a quick search+peruse, these seem to indicate that it's not around the corner either. Happy (/hope) to be corrected.

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4180

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/990

The `allow` attribute on iframes is a relatively recent API addition from 2017

https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3287

I think there's a pretty strong argument at this point for this kind of replacing DOM with a response behavior being part of the platform.

I think the first step would be an element that lets you load external content into the page declaratively. There's a spec issue open for this: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2791

And my custom element implementation of the idea: https://www.npmjs.com/package/html-include-element

Then HTML could support these elements being targets of links.

> Consider https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt vs https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/

I thought, oh, that's not so bad. Then I realized what I was looking at was a 10 page index.

> if we're finally seeing fruits of browsers being better standardized on "95%"+ of the popular features -- and if writing a browser today is in fact easier than both writing AND maintaining a browser a decade back.

A decade back, maybe... but decades ago the number of things you had to support was just so much smaller even if you only look at HTML! Consider https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt vs https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/

I'd love to see something like HTMX get standardized, but I'm extremely pessimistic for HTMX's prospects for standardization in HTML.

In talking to a few standards folks about it, they've all said, "oh, yeah, you want declarative AJAX; people have tried and failed to get that standardized for years." Even just trying to get

to target a section of the page that isn't an has been argued about and hashed out for years.<p>Why is that? Well, for example, here's the form you have to fill out to start standardizing a front-end feature. <a href="https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/new?assignees=&labels=addition%2Fproposal%2Cneeds+implementer+interest&projects=&template=1-new-feature.yml">https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/new?assignees=&labels=...</a><p>It asks three main questions:<p>* What problem are you trying to solve?

The issue with a single global event handler is discussed here: https://github.com/WICG/close-watcher#a-single-event

If you use popover="", you get the kind of functionality you're discussing for free. For

, the discussion is in progress and reaching a conclusion: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/9373

Since 2023 Chrome announced the View Transition API, and it looks like Safari is also going to support it soon.

One heap per type.

Here’s an allocator optimized for that use case.

https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/bmalloc/li...

To use this in Bun, you’d have to start Bun with the environment variable “BUN_JSC_useDollarVM=1” and then $vm.createBuiltin(mySourceCodeString)

When using this intrinsic, if any of the arguments are incorrect or it cannot otherwise enable it, the entire process will probably crash. In debug builds of JSC it will have a nicer assertion failure but that is not enabled in release builds

Example code: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/17351231b4dedb62d81721...

also happy to answer any questions about Bun

Ah, good, let me introduce you to the wonderful world of the Chrome Devtools Protocol! (fka Chrome Remote Debugging Protocol)

I love this API for almost everything browser related. I built my RBI product atop this (BrowserBox: https://dosyago.com), and I think it's a drastically underrated API.

Also, it works out of the box in Edge, Brave, Chromium, and many parts of CRDP are supported by Firefox and Safari^1

1: See for example: https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/main/Source/JavaScript...

No, it's unrelated.

https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/commit/064df1a9f395f8c6e32c...

It's being worked on now: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/pull/17320

It is different. The cross-site navigation flag is a couple of years old. It was enabled by default for iOS in November 2018 for example https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/commit/e191fc8c412850cb9fd0...

Technology Preview versions 173 and newer [58].

[57] is https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/pull/10169. At the bottom of it, an engineer continues to link ongoing hardening patches for window.open() + process isolation.

> That's excessive scope creep. Adding site-specific workarounds for some sites feels uncomfortable.

Not to Google and its fellow corporations apparently.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29707078

https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/pa...

They have site-specific fixes for their own sites. Why can obviously apply the exact same strategy to dealing with every single website out there. If a website is broken or generally annoying to use, just fix it by providing a site specific version of the browser.

> Who decides what websites get "fixed", and how?

Whoever develops the browser or its extensions. Arguably the whole of uBlock Origin and its filter lists is just a database of site specific fixes. If people can maintain an extremely huge list of advertisers and blockers for every website out there, surely they can maintain something like this too.

> Also, remember how Mozilla is funded.

I remember Mozilla has about a billion dollars in the bank. Who cares about their Google funding? I doubt they're gonna drop them anyway. I bet they pay them just to ward off risk of antitrust lawsuits.