3 ms·

I think that most people are worried about Google using a controversial[0], draft web "standard" (Signed HTTP Exchanges), that introduces a major change in how

I think that most people are worried about Google using a controversial[0], draft web "standard" (Signed HTTP Exchanges), that introduces a major change in how the web works, in mass production, without trying to first resolve the problems raised with the proposal. [0] For instance, Mozilla considers the current specification to be harmful[1]. [1] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

eudora 7y ago
It also puts a _lot_ of work on the publisher to implement these changes. Again. (Unless you're using CloudFlare)
- gregable 7y ago
  Currently, it's difficult to implement however unlike rewriting a page in AMP, signing the page is a purely mechanical operation. All that's required is to improve the tooling, it is theoretically possible to be a one-click change for any website out there. Initially adding gzip support to a web server was difficult and out the reach of many webmasters, now it's basically universal.
tytso 7y ago
There was an attempt to address Mozilla's concerns[1], but Mozilla never responded, unfortunately. If the Mozilla community chooses not to respond, that might cause people to consider whether or not their position should be given much weight. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#issuecomment-459547918 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#iss...
- RubenSandwich 7y ago
  What do you mean they never responded? They say they are working on a response[0]. Taking time to respond and informing the other party that it will take a while is not "never responded". [0] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#issuecomment-459605378 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#iss...
  - tytso 7y ago
    3 months is a long time.... how long is someone supposed to wait for a response before you just move ahead? If the answer is "forever", it becomes trivial to perform a denial of service attack on a standard. Mozilla specifically said, "this is not high priority for us". If it's not high priority for them to respond, that's fine, but waiting forever doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to require.
- codedokode 7y ago
  I am against this standard. First, I want to see the real URL in the address bar. Second, I don't want Mozilla to spend resources to implement specification that is made by Google for its own purposes.

eudora 7y ago

It also puts a _lot_ of work on the publisher to implement these changes. Again. (Unless you're using CloudFlare)

gregable 7y ago
Currently, it's difficult to implement however unlike rewriting a page in AMP, signing the page is a purely mechanical operation. All that's required is to improve the tooling, it is theoretically possible to be a one-click change for any website out there. Initially adding gzip support to a web server was difficult and out the reach of many webmasters, now it's basically universal.

tytso 7y ago

There was an attempt to address Mozilla's concerns[1], but Mozilla never responded, unfortunately. If the Mozilla community chooses not to respond, that might cause people to consider whether or not their position should be given much weight. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#issuecomment-459547918 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#iss...

RubenSandwich 7y ago
What do you mean they never responded? They say they are working on a response[0]. Taking time to respond and informing the other party that it will take a while is not "never responded". [0] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#issuecomment-459605378 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#iss...
- tytso 7y ago
  3 months is a long time.... how long is someone supposed to wait for a response before you just move ahead? If the answer is "forever", it becomes trivial to perform a denial of service attack on a standard. Mozilla specifically said, "this is not high priority for us". If it's not high priority for them to respond, that's fine, but waiting forever doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to require.
codedokode 7y ago
I am against this standard. First, I want to see the real URL in the address bar. Second, I don't want Mozilla to spend resources to implement specification that is made by Google for its own purposes.