In protest of the web{*} bulldozer, a response to websocket port scanning

Re:In protest of the web{*} bulldozer, a response to websock... by mindslight on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @06:57PM (#23252983)

> The standards committee doesn't want WebBatteryStatus? Fine, we'll implement it anyway and now Chrome desktop/mobile, Chromebooks, and Edge will all have it. Sites that want to use it will probably just use it and throw up a "Use Chrome" notification for Firefox and Safari.

The right answer is for Mozilla to implement the API, and leave it disabled by default. Disabled meaning it reports 90% full all the time, or some suitable probability distribution. If a specific API is actually useful for something, then the browser can notice if it being used and pop up its own permissions dialog to enable the API per-site.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In protest of the web{*} bulldozer, a response to websock... by usefulcat on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @08:38PM (#23253683)

That is starting to sound a lot like some sort of arms race.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In protest of the web{*} bulldozer, a response to websock... by no_wizard on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @09:06PM (#23253849)

Truth is, from the browser vendor perspective, it already is. Firefox used to be in an "arms race" of sorts when it was one of the most dominate browsers as well. Google just intensifies this reality as Microsoft with internet explorer rested on their laurels at a certain point which let Mozilla not have to push as fast/hard as they do now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In protest of the web{*} bulldozer, a response to websock... by mindslight on Thursday May 21, 2020 @01:21PM (#23261477)

Yes, as is any ecosystem with competing parties. Surveillance companies want to exfiltrate as much information as possible, users want security. Every new facet added to the API is a site for this competition. Which is why every new web API needs to be reviewed by someone looking out for security of the users.

[ Parent | on HN ]