4 ms·

> Who needs web standards, right? This new thing (signed HTTP exchanges) is an IETF draft. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-respons

> Who needs web standards, right? This new thing (signed HTTP exchanges) is an IETF draft. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-05 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed... As usual, Chrome is the first browser to implement this, but they're participating in the normal standards process. (Microsoft is in favor. The Chrome team generally ships stuff if at least one other major browser vendor approves.)

AlexandrB 8y ago
I stand corrected. But I still think that AMP and Google in general are bad for an open, competitive internet.
SamWhited 8y ago
They do participate in the standards process, and that's great, but it doesn't also mean they don't subvert it or shove tech down everyone's throats until it becomes a defacto standard that you have to implement if you want to stay competitive.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ENGNR 8y ago
But Firefox and Safari aren't on board. I thought everyone had agreed that browser flags were the best way to implement features that weren't actually approved/standardised yet Turning it on when they know there's no consensus is breaking the web standard
snek 8y ago
Normally I'd rush to Chrome's defense here (see my post history) but I have to agree with others about Chrome kind of breaking the process here. Other browser vendors have large concerns with this spec, so it's quite surprising that it's shipping at this scale.
- Twirrim 8y ago
  Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Chrome has done this before, e.g. with QUIC.
peterwwillis 8y ago
This doesn't mean anything though, they all crap out rfcs whenever they have a new feature to push. And they all usually agree with what each other pushes, but even if they don't, the browsers will just forge ahead however they want. Standards are diplomatic cover.
stephenr 8y ago
A draft written by a google employee.

AlexandrB 8y ago

I stand corrected. But I still think that AMP and Google in general are bad for an open, competitive internet.

SamWhited 8y ago

They do participate in the standards process, and that's great, but it doesn't also mean they don't subvert it or shove tech down everyone's throats until it becomes a defacto standard that you have to implement if you want to stay competitive.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ENGNR 8y ago

But Firefox and Safari aren't on board. I thought everyone had agreed that browser flags were the best way to implement features that weren't actually approved/standardised yet Turning it on when they know there's no consensus is breaking the web standard

snek 8y ago

Normally I'd rush to Chrome's defense here (see my post history) but I have to agree with others about Chrome kind of breaking the process here. Other browser vendors have large concerns with this spec, so it's quite surprising that it's shipping at this scale.

Twirrim 8y ago
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Chrome has done this before, e.g. with QUIC.

peterwwillis 8y ago

This doesn't mean anything though, they all crap out rfcs whenever they have a new feature to push. And they all usually agree with what each other pushes, but even if they don't, the browsers will just forge ahead however they want. Standards are diplomatic cover.

stephenr 8y ago

A draft written by a google employee.