Our great sponsors
-
-
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
-
proposals
A home for well-formed proposed incubations for the web platform. All proposals welcome. (by WICG)
> Says the only person in this thread slinging vile insults left and right
Maybe? We're both pretty hot here, perhaps; I can ignore that jive. The difference is, I am swinging for progressiveness & growth & possibility. I am yes I am anti. I'm huge anti. I'm anti-fascist, I'm anti-top-down-control, I'm anti-conservative-mindsets, because these things threaten diversity, progress, possibility, & growth. The whole purpose & nature of tech is to enable possibility, to beget enhanceability, & rejecting that is folly. There are many enemies about to letting people do things with computers, alas. (Plenty just need a little more help, some deserve vitriol.)
> 2. I even gave you a link showing how patently false your statements about Google being careful with specs are
That's what I was replying to. Let's sidestep your overreaction there-in & ignoring a vast swarth of evidence about process you just straight up ignored (both times) in that thread, & talk about the spec.
Yes, Mozilla team/present-leader Martin is far far far less willing to entertain any possible "risk," here & more at length in WebUSB[1]. Fear that devices might not want to be accessible, to me, reads more like propaganda against the Hacker spirit & creativity, bends to the corporation owning our devices & not us. We do need to shield users, but shielding users absolutely from any possibility, to save them from a couple possibly risky possibilities, is a damned & infernal decision. Alas Mozilla/Martin not only make a harsh & greatly constraining decision readily, they make this decision lightly & without any interest in remedy, show no interest in exploring possibility.
Martin's complaint in WebUSB seems to revolve entirely around imagining that it'll be hard to update a blocklist to access usb-bluetooth (and potentially other high security devices) devices:
> This proposal also uses a blocklist, which will require constant and active maintenance so that vulnerable devices aren't exploited. This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices
For one, I'm not even sure why we'd want to block access to bluetooth devices. If a user wants to go to a webpage that tries to act like a bluetooth sniffer (or something far more prosaic), & give the page permission to use their bluetooth devices, I don't think that's unreasonable or should be prohibited. The concerns Martin projects haven't panned out yet: scant cases of abuse, and the blocklist has required nearly no tending to. Even though the most popular browser on the planet has shipped this feature for half a decade now. As a recent-ish comment says:
> The discussion here seems to mostly be around vague concerns that have not been proven to be problematic [in the half-decade since it got shipped].
I find the Mozilla positions here to be immoral & indefensible, especially as they stand without any suggestion of remedy. Denial of possibility, without suggestion or willingness to progress, is an anethema, & Mozilla has been unwilling to demonstrate any buy in, hasn't shown any interest in helping progress things. Their pretenses of security-mindedness are damaging & detrimental, & out of touch, inflexible, and haven't changed across half-a-decade of evidence stacked against them. Denying WebUSB & WebHID is a tragedy, firewalls off the web from essential & basic computing that it ought be able to involve itself with, & that is used to enormously good effect, such as the schoolchildren's ability to work with their BBC:MicroBit[2] with whatever computer they have about.
[1] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/368/file...
[2] https://microbit.org/get-started/user-guide/web-usb/
Your attitude continues to be unimpressive & single-sided, asking while also undermining genuine discourse. This is distasteful & sly. Please decide whether you want to press your opinion or engage in discourse, but don't try to sneakily mix the two. Let's dive in to what the real status is, since you seem to be pushing Brandolini's Law[1] as hard as you can, yet again.
According to still-current PRs[3], :has() psuedo-selector is optional and at risk. The working group then noted "no one has figured out how to do it in a performant way," and there's still no clear proof this capability will indeed be safe & free of pitfalls in any browser. But Safari is implementing (risking performance pitfalls), & Chrome has decided that the risk of killing performance is an acceptable trade-off for the feature.
> It’s been in the draft spec for four years.
First, that's a draft spec. Not published. Safari typically doesn't even start implementing until features are published, so this is all pretty different than where we normally are.
Second, it's been in draft for >8 years[3]. It's barely been touched or worked on. It's a huge scary dangerous feature, that Apple has pushed.
I think it's misrepresentative to state this as a clear & surefire win. To keep score over a matter of months for a standard which is risky, in draft, and has been outstanding for 8 years seems like a high definition of petty, shitty, disingenuous scorekeeping. Trying to portray this like a real win is bullshit. We don't even know that delivering it is going to actually be ok: it's still at risk, we might find it is as dangerous as Chrome said, csswg might remove it from the draft.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
[2] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/4733
[3] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/248f22c92839a6504...
> The problem is that people look at the Apple / Google duopoly and say "look we have competition! How can you compare this to Microsoft in the 90s!?"
Strong agreement. There's also a flacid, weak, shitty, useless anti-trust system, which was stripped of power by Borkism in the Reagan era. My generation has literally never seen effective anti-trust. Not once has a case been made against exploitative, anti-competitive practices that really has resonated in America, in decades, and it's not for lack of shitty, no good villians. It's because of Borkism[1][2], because of redefinition of what anti-trust meant under Reagan.
> The sheer amount of anticompetitive behavior both these companies have done over the years is insane when you put in prospective what Microsoft went to court over.
That Microsoft faced so much shit for such a relatively small act is amazing. What Apple does is absurd to me, that there's seemingly no legal challenge to their dominion-without-question of 30% of the web. I've looked at quite a number of anti-trust complaints against Google, and frankly, I owe it to myself/all to go re-review.
Google like Apple has suits against them for the 30% cut they charge at their store, which is both valid & respectable but also- on Android- easily avoidable & the open-source OS itself (& it's releases) actively supports alternative delivery platforms such as F-Droid and sideloading: Google actively supports competition. But we're seeing a lot of apps drop in-app sales, and I think that's a telling & real response: 30% is absurd. There's a number of suits against ads, and search. To be honest, none of these have left a distinct impression, have really clicked for me. I am fully able to believe there may be some serious fuckery here-abouts. There's a suit about Google Assistant systems being unable to also support alternative systems like Alexa: as a fan of general-purpose computing & competitive competition, I think this is absolutely a place that there should be straightforward & clear mandates for all companys, Google included, to be compelled to allow interopation: restricting people making devices to have to pick one and only one partner is basically a reasonable battle against Qualcomm-ism[3], against coersion, is a move to enable basic device-maker and consumer choice.
Against all of this backdrop though, one critical thing I think most of the world really has no sense of is that Google is somewhat alive under a weird patronage model. Their cash cows feel serve as patrons to the artists, and the artists are there just to make the ecosystem healthy & alive. The cash registers ring because of a semi-open market, because the web is a pretty damned good place to connect, host shit, do shit; better than AOL, better than Microsoft Windows, better than apps.
Trying to stack the deck laterally, to make the web be Google's web, or Android be Google's Android: they are extremely liable to kill the cash cow. These need to be healthy, independent, functional systems, that are getting better & remaining at the very forefront of competition against all others. This health is absolutely the pinnacle concern, is existentially important. Android or the web could readily collapse if things go poorly, if corruption takes root, if whiffs of real genuine misdealings gets into the air. And frankly, the problem solves itself internally. Google historically & famously has been an engineering lead organization. They have a long history of employing very good, public figures who care about the web, who know about the web, who have wanted to make the web better, who seem motivated by strong intrinsic desires. These people sit on standards boards, they help align Chrome. These people don't take shit from traditional corporate lackies trying to make some fast bucks by dodgy inter-dealings.
Again, given Google's strong first & second party relationships (search and ads), no matter what happens with browsers, webtech (& to a lesser degree Android), Google will have an incomparable vast & mighty perch to understand & analyze & model the web from, and not unfairly, not by cheating, not by underhandedness. The objective is to keep the shared, common, competitive platform alive, shared, & competitive. By doing good engineering. By making development better & easier & giving them better superpowers. By not hazarding gross breakage that would sabotage public belief/faith. This isn't a super complex system. It's nicely isolated parts, which each do their own thing: make better systems, use free-market search & ads to be top of the game (to make $ & to keep funding/patronizing the essential ecosystem).
> Many of us saw projects like Firefox grow in the 2000s, giving hope that open source and standards would win out in the end. But we dwindled, lulled by the sweet promises of Chrome and their open core.
True true. Will has been lost. Chromium is remarkably accessible, there are remarkably good hooks still in place to go build our own sync systems or what not. Few have chased up, have tried to really amplify & enhance Chromium into an open browser. That's unfortunate.
In general I'd say the real frontier for advancement is on https://wicg.io . This has been a very compelling case for how the web really needed to advance all along. An extremely low barrier to entry to start proposing ideas, where other standards folks & standards-adjacent folk can chime in & help steer, help sheppard young web ideas into desireable, promising standards that stand a fair chance of being adopted.
I definitely wish there were more alternatives out there, more efforts. I have hope we'll see some new arisals show up. But at the same time, I don't see Chrome as bad or scary or problematic. There's very few cases people have made against it that seem, well, real. Emotion & fear & doubt run rampant. Even when the team makes decisions I truly detest (e.g. squandering awesome HTTP Push potential then abandoning the capability) I generally understand & can see where folks are coming from. We're not accelerating to where I'd wish to go, but it's incredibly rare that I see Chrome/Chromium as going in actively bad directions, building "bad" web platform. Very few have made a case that I can really see or grasp, that's worth agreeing or disagreeing with about Chrome or Android, about how Google invests & shapes these forwards. I continue to see this more as a patronage system, as investment in the necessary & worthy ecosystem, that supports the existence of a separate, more corporate entity. And I don't see the anti-competitive practices taking root in this web or android space, generally.
[1] https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/06/calera/#fuck-bork
[2] https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/09/rest-in-piss-robert-bork/...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31628094