- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I’m happy to see this being noticed more and more. Google wants to destroy the open web, so it’s a lot at stake.
Google basically says “Trust us”. What a joke.
I’m happy to see this being noticed more and more. Google wants to destroy the open web, so it’s a lot at stake.
Google basically says “Trust us”. What a joke.
What’s the “web protocol”? Are you talking about HTTP?
Seems from their response to me asking the same thing, they mean browser engines, not anything to do with any of the protocols involved.
I wish I’d said “web standards” instead.
You mean HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc?
Including those but also all specifications defined by the W3C. I would post other examples here but I’m out of my depth.
Ok well, the modern web technology ecosystem is incredibly featureful and flexible, it allows a huge array of options for building rich interactive applications, all delivered to your browser on-demand in a few seconds.
Sure some of the technologies involved aren’t perfect (and I challenge you to find any system that feature-rich that doesn’t have a few dark corners), but there really no alternative option that comes close in terms of flexibility and maturity.
Adding features endlessly, heedless of danger of the inate security issue from the complexity, makes for an uncompetative and ultimatly unsustainable ecosystem.
The alternative I believe in is to use seperare apps for each segmented feature (the dedicated video player plays the video, the browser merely fetches it).
Web standards are public, discussed openly, heavily scrutinised (including by security researchers) and available for any browser developer to implement.
You want to go back to the days of Realplayer, Acrobat Reader, Flash, etc, when individual companies made their own privately developed closed source apps?