topics
standards-positions | topics | |
---|---|---|
180 | 30 | |
598 | 568 | |
1.0% | 2.8% | |
7.6 | 8.1 | |
3 months ago | 2 days ago | |
Python | Bikeshed | |
Mozilla Public License 2.0 | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
standards-positions
-
Firefox Webserial Addon
You can read through the conversations to understand more of the context
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100#is...
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336
The main struggle is around giving informed consent that explains the risks. Understandably, browsers don't want to ship a "Set my printer on fire" button.
-
iOS404
You can check why Mozilla and Apple have opted to not support this.
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154
https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28
Neither Mozilla or Webkit are satisfied that the proposal is safe by default, and contains footguns for the user that can be pretty destructive.
-
Show HN: DualShock calibration in the browser using WebHID
FWIW Mozilla updated their position on Web Serial API to "neutral" and clarified that they might be okay with enabling the API with an add-on.
https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webserial
Allowing serial but not HID would be really strange. With HID you get standard identifiers that let you filter out devices that are too dangerous for the web. With serial you get nothing. Even if you know a device is dangerous, there's no way to protect users from it.
-
Tailwind CSS v4.0.0 Alpha
Hasn't FireFox been dragging their asses on @scope? https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472
It took years to just convince them of the need for it. And I'm not sure anyone got convinced vs Chrome had already shipped it and Safari has it planned so they caved in.
Hard to believe FireFox used to be a leader of the modern web.
-
An HTML Switch Control
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
-
Platform issues which disadvantage Firefox compared to first-party browsers
Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100
I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare.
It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.
-
What Progressive Web App (PWA) Can Do Today
This should have big warnings on it. Some of these are not web standards; they are features implemented unilaterally by Google in Blink that have been explicitly rejected by both Mozilla and Apple on privacy and security grounds.
Take Web Bluetooth, for example:
Mozilla:
> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.
— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth
Apple:
> Here are some examples of features we have decided to not yet implement due to fingerprinting, security, and other concerns, and where we do not yet see a path to resolving those concerns
— https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/
This is Microsoft’s Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish bullshit applied to the web platform by Google. Google keeps implementing these things despite all other major rendering engines rejecting them, convinces people that they are part of the web, resulting in sites like this, then people start asking why Firefox and Safari are “missing functionality”. These are not part of the web platform, they are Google APIs that have been explicitly rejected.
-
Why Are Tech Reporters Sleeping on the Biggest App Store Story?
Is BLE a PWA requirement? I think they explained their position pretty well here, regardless of whether I agree:
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...
-
Reason to Use Firefox Is Sync That Works
I took a glance at Can I Use what the difference between the last public release of Firefox and Chrome is [1] and they don't really have that big of a difference in the eyes of normal use-cases? Some of these aren't implemented purely because of privacy reasons, the proposals aren't finished yet or complexity [2].
Why would Firefox need to change to Chromium engine? The only websites I notice that don't work with Firefox is because of user-agent targetting or just putting 5-second time-outs in Youtube code on non-chrome webbrowsers [3].
Can you give some examples of websites not working on Firefox?
[1] https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+120%2Cfirefox+121&compar...
[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
[3] https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-seemingly-intentionally-...
- Mozilla's Position on CSS Scope
topics
-
How to Turn Off Google's "Privacy Sandbox" Ad Tracking–and Why You Should
The browser keeps track of he top 5 categories from this list of these 629 topics. https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/...
Other than when it returns a random topic, the browser only reveals a topic to a site if that site has observed the user on a site with that topic before.
- UX Is Misleading
-
Google Chrome just rolled out a new way to track you and serve ads
Delete Chrome.
“The intent of the Topics API is to provide callers (including third-party ad-tech or advertising providers on the page that run script) with coarse-grained advertising topics that the page visitor might currently be interested in.”
https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics#the-api-an...
-
Alert: No Google Topics in Vivaldi
Those are the top-level categories. Each of them has subcategories which are more granular. Not all of them are public, from what I can tell. Here's an example of some that are. https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/...
-
Go to Chrome://settings/adPrivacy to turn off the spyware that in Chrome
https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/...
>knows that you are male and sees that you've been recently interested in dresses and panties, and this website happens to be a far-right-leaning activist website, and decides to dox you, or blackmail you, or forward this information to Ron DeSantis's administration for possible criminal prosecution, you're all good with that?
If you want to keep topics a secret you can just block them. Every week of your 5 topics that gets selected there is a 5% chance that a topic in replaced with a random one. If you see a user's topic is /Shopping/Apparel/Women's Clothing/Dresses it could be there by chance. It would also require the site to take out a bunch of ads on these women clothing sites hoping that one of your future website visitors would see your ad.
-
Google is already pushing WEI (web DRM) into Chromium
> You seem to be taking things that are factual, normal, everyday, aspects of the WHATWG working process and trying to imply that chrome is doing something unusual, or untoward with its process here, but it isn't. It's doing what is necessary to make a proposal with WHATWG: have a trial.
And yet, we've seen many such proposals go through this process because Chrome is paying lip service to it. Whatever Google wants it ships. And Google wants this.
As an adjacent (ads- and tracking-related) example: Google's FLoC flopped, hard. So they immediatey shipped the replacement Topics API [1] despite there being no consensus. E.g. Firefox is against [2] (but Chrome presents Firefox's position as "No signal" in the feature status). And despite the fact that its status is literally "individual proposal, not accepted" [3]
Do not assume any good intent on Google's part when it comes to Google's business interests. Their intent is always malicious until proven otherwise. And there have been fewer and fewer cases when they have been proven otherwise.
[1] https://chromestatus.com/feature/5680923054964736
[2] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622
[3] https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics
-
Google asks websites to kindly not break its shiny new targeted-advertising API
> [0] https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/...
Nice v1 at the end. We can assume that this list is final and will not be changed?
> nor (by policy) other kinds of sensitive PII.
Yeah, it just exposes interest in family planing, loans, ..., which we do know have absolutely no potential for abuse.
Or given the attempts to outlaw drag there is probably no potential way to use interest in Nail Care or Makeup in a negative fashion, right?
> Yes, if you assume the people who designed this API were idiots
I assume they are getting paid well to play the role.
- Say Goodbye to Privacy with Google Chrome's Latest Update! Aren't you happy that you're using Firefox instead? It's a good time to educate your Chrome friends.
-
What is "Ad privacy"?
It's related to Google's Topics API proposal, I guess. This new API automatically categorizes users into pre-defined "topics" that are inferred by the browser through a classifier model (basically matching the hostname with the classifier model). So, in the end, advertisers sent ads for these topics, and users within shall see them).
-
W3C re-launched as a public-interest non-profit organization
Don't take my word for it: WordPress treated FLoC as a security concern in 2021: https://make.wordpress.org/core/2021/04/18/proposal-treat-fl...
A good overview of the context: https://digiday.com/media/we-cant-un-floc-ourselves-googles-...
More detail: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...
When it comes to Topics, it's essential that there be hands on the wheel at W3C that approach the solidification of e.g. the Topics taxonomy https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/... from a neutral perspective that takes into account the various ways in which proposed topics could be dangerous, and how strongly to word the specification to prevent it from creeping in increasingly privacy-eroding ways in the future.
What are some alternatives?
webcontainer-core - Dev environments. In your web app.
AmIUnique - Learn how identifiable you are on the Internet
WHATWG HTML Standard - HTML Standard
semver - Semantic Versioning Specification
wpt - Test suites for Web platform specs — including WHATWG, W3C, and others
uBlock-issues - This is the community-maintained issue tracker for uBlock Origin
firefox-ios - Firefox for iOS
brave-browser - Brave browser for Android, iOS, Linux, macOS, Windows.
WebKit - Home of the WebKit project, the browser engine used by Safari, Mail, App Store and many other applications on macOS, iOS and Linux.
Plausible Analytics - Simple, open source, lightweight (< 1 KB) and privacy-friendly web analytics alternative to Google Analytics.
Fakeflix - Not the usual clone that you can find on the web.
floc - This proposal has been replaced by the Topics API.