3 ms·

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. > Do they want to take action to address it? Within the constraints of the assumptions I've outlined, yes, and they have.

by roca 9y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. > Do they want to take action to address it? Within the constraints of the assumptions I've outlined, yes, and they have. One example is the fight for asm.js/Webassembly against PNaCl+Pepper. We fought that fight in part because Google was fine with introducing a whole new platform API in the form of Pepper, and Mozilla instead wanted to minimize the additional complexity by reusing existing Web platform APIs. > Why does the "open Web" need to stay relevant? I want a platform that isn't controlled by any single gatekeeper, through which app/content developers can reach all users and all users can reach the apps and content they want. (A sort of corollary is that the platform should be implementable in free software.) The Web is by far the closest thing we have to that. One problem with a niche browser is that when you have a browser with very low market share, Web developers don't test against it, and with the state of software development technology today, stuff that's not tested in a platform implementation tends to not work on that platform implementation. Another problem with a niche browser is that by definition it impacts a small number of users, and therefore only a relatively small investment can be justified. Fortunately there is nothing stopping you or some like-minded group from doing your experiment. Tor has already done something similar and that's gone quite well.

feelin_googley 9y ago
Our respective ideas of what constitutes complexity appear to differ. Both of your alternatives are far too complex for what I envision of less complexity. I envision a browser that browses hypertext, not a program that automatically runs third party code. Further, I do not think of browsers in terms of "market share" nor testing for one browser or another. I guess I have done a poor job explaining the point about standards. Testing input, e.g. a webpage, against a program, e.g. a browser, is backwards, IMO. A program should be tested against input. If the program fails given legal input, then if desired, fix the program. The web contains plenty of legal input for a wide variety of clients. I am consuming it everyday. This plain fact appears to be outside of Mozilla's purview. But to me, a user, this is what the "open web" means, much more so than a squabble between Mozilla developers working on Firefox and former Mozilla developers working on Chrome over some exotic feature to entice web developers. The "open" web to me means I can retrieve information with a simple open source client I can compile, and without an overly complex web browser controlled by a corporation/organization that is by its complex nature unreasonably difficult to compile except for a select few people. That is not "open" within the meaning I subscribe to, which is more along the lines of "accessible". The more complex the browser becomes and thus the more complex the input that web developers create for it, the less "open" the web becomes, because it becomes less accessible. I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but I at least hope that these points make some sense.

by roca 9y ago

feelin_googley 9y ago

Our respective ideas of what constitutes complexity appear to differ. Both of your alternatives are far too complex for what I envision of less complexity. I envision a browser that browses hypertext, not a program that automatically runs third party code. Further, I do not think of browsers in terms of "market share" nor testing for one browser or another. I guess I have done a poor job explaining the point about standards. Testing input, e.g. a webpage, against a program, e.g. a browser, is backwards, IMO. A program should be tested against input. If the program fails given legal input, then if desired, fix the program. The web contains plenty of legal input for a wide variety of clients. I am consuming it everyday. This plain fact appears to be outside of Mozilla's purview. But to me, a user, this is what the "open web" means, much more so than a squabble between Mozilla developers working on Firefox and former Mozilla developers working on Chrome over some exotic feature to entice web developers. The "open" web to me means I can retrieve information with a simple open source client I can compile, and without an overly complex web browser controlled by a corporation/organization that is by its complex nature unreasonably difficult to compile except for a select few people. That is not "open" within the meaning I subscribe to, which is more along the lines of "accessible". The more complex the browser becomes and thus the more complex the input that web developers create for it, the less "open" the web becomes, because it becomes less accessible. I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but I at least hope that these points make some sense.