News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Please consider not adopting Google WebComponents by jolmg on Tuesday March 17, 2020 @05:21PM (#22610583)
> My suspicion is that, when Pale Moon asks you not to use Web Components, they're doing so because their engine is old

They address this:

> Full disclosure: While it is absolutely true that it is in our direct interest that web developers don't use something we are still working on implementing ourselves (considering our limited capacity as a smaller non-profit community, which is likely the same for any other true Open Source/Libre projects out there), the impact of what is outlined above is much more far-reaching than just our own projects; not only is it pushing for a proprietary web that is vendor-locked, it also, as stated, becomes something that will be impossible to archive, save or process.

So, yeah, they have special interest, but that doesn't take away from their point.

Re:Please consider not adopting Google WebComponents by eropple on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @12:33AM (#22613653)
It takes away from the point when it's untrue. Web Components is a standard. Multiple implementations exist. They don't have one and are sore.
Re:Please consider not adopting Google WebComponents by jolmg on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @02:49AM (#22614249)
This isn't the first time the topic of browser monoculture has been brought up. Why does it matter that it was Pale Moon that brought it up this time? If I or anyone else would have written the post instead of them, would then people focus on the issue instead of on who brought it up?

> It takes away from the point when it's untrue

What exactly are you saying is untrue? Can you quote the part?

There are comments[1] right in this same thread that confirm Pale Moon's statements about the inability to save or archive pages.

> Web Components is a standard. Multiple implementations exist.

Are you sure it's not Google that's controlling what's to become "standard" and Firefox that chases after them? And I say Firefox specifically, because, besides Safari, they seem to be the only other implementation on the market. Edge uses Chrome's engine. Indeed, with Chrome's 64% in market share[2], anything they do becomes "standard" automatically. With Firefox's 4.5%, I don't think they can do anything but chase after the Chrome guys to wherever they decide to take the web.

Isn't the point of a standard to help foster a rich ecosystem of diverse, interoperable implementations? I feel that a standard that evolves too fast (as made possible by an implementation monoculture) fails at fostering one.

This is what I believe Pale Moon is getting at when they say:

> The more additional "features" are tacked on to these components, the less likely it is for non-Google clients to be able to display sites in full or properly.

It gets harder and harder to make a new web engine from scratch. It's a step backwards from gaining a more diverse browser ecosystem.

The fact that Web Components specifically makes it harder to parse content (for archival or indexing purposes, etc.) is a separate issue, and for it, it doesn't matter if it's standard. In fact, it makes it worse.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22605069

[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share