2 ms·

> 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:

by jolmg 7y ago

> 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.

eropple 7y ago
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.
- jolmg 7y ago
  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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22605069 [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

by jolmg 7y ago

eropple 7y ago

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.

jolmg 7y ago
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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22605069 [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share