10 ms·

I have fuming anger over the whole world deciding Google will set the standard for browsers. I wonder if EFF and similar orgs are doing anything legally, perha

I have fuming anger over the whole world deciding Google will set the standard for browsers. I wonder if EFF and similar orgs are doing anything legally, perhaps EU can armtwist again?

cortesoft 7y ago
What would the legal issue be, exactly? Twitter is the one deciding to code against chrome’s features, not google.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Regulating browser standards so that a commercial org can't publish browsers that don't comply. Much like how cars are regulated to be "road legal".
  - detaro 7y ago
    Both Chrome and Firefox behave correctly according to the relevant standard.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So now we want the government to define what can be defined as a browser? So what is this government agency that has the technical wherewithal to “regulate browsers”? What’s going to happen when someone decides that browsers must have content restrictions? It amazes me how willing some people on HN just willingly give up their freedom to the government.
    - jonathankoren 7y ago
      >So what is this government agency that has the technical wherewithal to “regulate browsers”? NIST for one.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        You really trust NIST to know the intricacies of creating a browser? Besides, hasn’t the last few years shown you what happens when you have government organizations led by people who aren’t experts but who are appointed for political reasons? Even when you do have competent people in the government like in the CDC, they are still hamstrung by the ideology of the executive branch.
        badrabbit 7y ago
        Yes. Have you ever read a NIST standard?
        scarface74 7y ago
        So before Apple, Google, and Mozilla release a browser they should have to go through an approval process?
        zzo38computer 7y ago
        My suggestion, though, is different. If NIST has such an approval process, then, Apple/Google/Mozilla/anyone else doesn't have to go through an approval process, but if they do go through such process then they can put on their product, the sign "Approved by NIST as web browser compliance". However, I am not so sure that such a thing is even necessary at all. I think the use of the web browser should be reduced in order that this is not necessary.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Yeah because being approved by NIST will carry as much weight to consumers as being W3C compliant...
        jonathankoren 7y ago
        Do you believe that consumers even know that the W3C exists?
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      Oh please, give me a break here. Browsers are essential to modern life. Anyone from a young student to an old person about to retire needs them to survive these days, so yeah I want them to regulate this. > What’s going to happen when someone decides that browsers must have content restrictions? You're joking right? You think the government can't do that already? Ok,let's see the logic here , let's say that's the case. What happens when Google decides to have content restrictions? Nothing! It's not regulated activity so it falls under Google's freedom of speech,they can restrict any content they want. However b.s. it might be, in theory at least you have some control over your government. Google does what is in their best business interest, you are the product, advertisers are their customers. Your illusion of freedom is to have your own government as far away as possible. Would you be comfortable if General Motors or Ford decided the safety standard or road-readiness of cars? Certainly you can't have government take away your freedoms by telling them what is safe and acceptable for the general public to use? What if the government decides to have them restrict cars from driving to certain places!
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Oh please, give me a break here. Browsers are essential to modern life. Anyone from a young student to an old person about to retire needs them to survive these days, so yeah I want them to regulate this. You really have no idea how many seniors don’t have internet access. I don’t think a browser not properly supporting the CSS box model will kill anyone.... What happens when Google decides to have content restrictions? Nothing! It's not regulated activity so it falls under Google's freedom of speech,they can restrict any content they want. How can Google restrict the websites I go to? However b.s. it might be, in theory at least you have some control over your government. Google does what is in their best business interest, you are the product, advertisers are their customers. As if government officials don’t do what’s in their own best interest. Because of the way that both the electoral college and the Senate is designed, if you live in a more populous state, you will always have less voting power than someone in “Middle America.” Not to mention gerrymandering. So exactly how does a browser not adhering to standards affect my survival?
        badrabbit 7y ago
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    How are you ever supposed to add any experimental features to a browser, then?
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    Instead of requiring that, a better alternative is: You can still use software that doesn't comply, and commercial organizations can write software that doesn't comply, but then they can't call it a compliant web browser program. (This way, the user is properly informed what it is.) This way, it won't stop anyone's freedom to do something, especially that of the user (who might or might not also be a programmer). But I think WWW is too messy and complicated. Better is to not require a web browser at all, if it can be avoided. (There is also gopher, telnet, postal mail, etc, depending what you need. The web pages can still be provided as an option, of course.)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
oefrha 7y ago
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.2.2 Since origin servers do not always provide explicit expiration times, a cache MAY assign a heuristic expiration time when an explicit time is not specified, employing algorithms that use other header field values (such as the Last-Modified time) to estimate a plausible expiration time. This specification does not provide specific algorithms, but does impose worst-case constraints on their results. The standard does not say what heuristics should be used, so Firefox’s heuristics is no more “legitimate” than Chorme/Safari’s heuristics of expiring immediately when Content-Dispostion is present. “Firefox legitimately treats...” is highly misleading, making it sound like Firefox is more standard-compliant, but it’s not; it’s just different.
- detaro 7y ago
  And it's allowed to treat it differently than the other browsers. That's what "legitimately" means. And that needs to be pointed out, because Twitter was very careful to avoid saying it wasn't a Firefox bug.
- SpaceNugget 7y ago
  I am fairly confident that the article is not trying to imply that Chrome/Safari are NOT standards compliant. The author seems to be trying to heavily emphasize that this is not a Firefox bug, and that Firefox can legitimately do this while being standards compliant. I feel like the author was anticipating a lot of people blaming Firefox for this incident, and is attempting to shut those responses before they get made. I think that trying to write to the responses you expect from your audience unfortunately ends up with these kinds of miscommunications of intention more often than not.
  - faitswulff 7y ago
    Twitter explicitly blamed Firefox for the behavior, so the anticipation is warranted.
- notRobot 7y ago
  Please don't use code blocks for quotes. It makes it very hard to read text on mobile, narrow viewports or via screen readers.
jefftk 7y ago
Since this handling of Content-Disposition is also in Safari it likely predates Google's involvement, and might even go all the way back to KHTML. (Disclosure: I work for Google)
- dblohm7 7y ago
  Mozilla dev here, I’ve been told that Gecko’s behaviour matches IE’s and Netscape’s.
detaro 7y ago
Google hasn't decided a standard here. It just happened to be the case that their heuristic avoided the problem here, so Twitters bug only caused a potential problem for Firefox.
- Vinnl 7y ago
  I don't think GP meant that Google decided a standard, but that the world (and in this case, Twitter) decided that whatever Google does is considered the standard. In other words, rather than checking with the standard how to indicate that content should not be cached, they simply checked whether Chrome did not cache it, and since it didn't, decided that whatever they were doing was the way to prevent caching.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    Yes, that is what I meant.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

I have fuming anger over the whole world deciding Google will set the standard for browsers. I wonder if EFF and similar orgs are doing anything legally, perhaps EU can armtwist again?

cortesoft 7y ago

What would the legal issue be, exactly? Twitter is the one deciding to code against chrome’s features, not google.

badrabbit 7y ago
Regulating browser standards so that a commercial org can't publish browsers that don't comply. Much like how cars are regulated to be "road legal".
- detaro 7y ago
  Both Chrome and Firefox behave correctly according to the relevant standard.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So now we want the government to define what can be defined as a browser? So what is this government agency that has the technical wherewithal to “regulate browsers”? What’s going to happen when someone decides that browsers must have content restrictions? It amazes me how willing some people on HN just willingly give up their freedom to the government.
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    >So what is this government agency that has the technical wherewithal to “regulate browsers”? NIST for one.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      You really trust NIST to know the intricacies of creating a browser? Besides, hasn’t the last few years shown you what happens when you have government organizations led by people who aren’t experts but who are appointed for political reasons? Even when you do have competent people in the government like in the CDC, they are still hamstrung by the ideology of the executive branch.
      - badrabbit 7y ago
        Yes. Have you ever read a NIST standard?
        scarface74 7y ago
        So before Apple, Google, and Mozilla release a browser they should have to go through an approval process?
        zzo38computer 7y ago
        My suggestion, though, is different. If NIST has such an approval process, then, Apple/Google/Mozilla/anyone else doesn't have to go through an approval process, but if they do go through such process then they can put on their product, the sign "Approved by NIST as web browser compliance". However, I am not so sure that such a thing is even necessary at all. I think the use of the web browser should be reduced in order that this is not necessary.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Yeah because being approved by NIST will carry as much weight to consumers as being W3C compliant...
        jonathankoren 7y ago
        Do you believe that consumers even know that the W3C exists?
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    Oh please, give me a break here. Browsers are essential to modern life. Anyone from a young student to an old person about to retire needs them to survive these days, so yeah I want them to regulate this. > What’s going to happen when someone decides that browsers must have content restrictions? You're joking right? You think the government can't do that already? Ok,let's see the logic here , let's say that's the case. What happens when Google decides to have content restrictions? Nothing! It's not regulated activity so it falls under Google's freedom of speech,they can restrict any content they want. However b.s. it might be, in theory at least you have some control over your government. Google does what is in their best business interest, you are the product, advertisers are their customers. Your illusion of freedom is to have your own government as far away as possible. Would you be comfortable if General Motors or Ford decided the safety standard or road-readiness of cars? Certainly you can't have government take away your freedoms by telling them what is safe and acceptable for the general public to use? What if the government decides to have them restrict cars from driving to certain places!
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Oh please, give me a break here. Browsers are essential to modern life. Anyone from a young student to an old person about to retire needs them to survive these days, so yeah I want them to regulate this. You really have no idea how many seniors don’t have internet access. I don’t think a browser not properly supporting the CSS box model will kill anyone.... What happens when Google decides to have content restrictions? Nothing! It's not regulated activity so it falls under Google's freedom of speech,they can restrict any content they want. How can Google restrict the websites I go to? However b.s. it might be, in theory at least you have some control over your government. Google does what is in their best business interest, you are the product, advertisers are their customers. As if government officials don’t do what’s in their own best interest. Because of the way that both the electoral college and the Senate is designed, if you live in a more populous state, you will always have less voting power than someone in “Middle America.” Not to mention gerrymandering. So exactly how does a browser not adhering to standards affect my survival?
      - badrabbit 7y ago
- cortesoft 7y ago
  How are you ever supposed to add any experimental features to a browser, then?
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  Instead of requiring that, a better alternative is: You can still use software that doesn't comply, and commercial organizations can write software that doesn't comply, but then they can't call it a compliant web browser program. (This way, the user is properly informed what it is.) This way, it won't stop anyone's freedom to do something, especially that of the user (who might or might not also be a programmer). But I think WWW is too messy and complicated. Better is to not require a web browser at all, if it can be avoided. (There is also gopher, telnet, postal mail, etc, depending what you need. The web pages can still be provided as an option, of course.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

oefrha 7y ago

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.2.2 Since origin servers do not always provide explicit expiration times, a cache MAY assign a heuristic expiration time when an explicit time is not specified, employing algorithms that use other header field values (such as the Last-Modified time) to estimate a plausible expiration time. This specification does not provide specific algorithms, but does impose worst-case constraints on their results. The standard does not say what heuristics should be used, so Firefox’s heuristics is no more “legitimate” than Chorme/Safari’s heuristics of expiring immediately when Content-Dispostion is present. “Firefox legitimately treats...” is highly misleading, making it sound like Firefox is more standard-compliant, but it’s not; it’s just different.

detaro 7y ago
And it's allowed to treat it differently than the other browsers. That's what "legitimately" means. And that needs to be pointed out, because Twitter was very careful to avoid saying it wasn't a Firefox bug.
SpaceNugget 7y ago
I am fairly confident that the article is not trying to imply that Chrome/Safari are NOT standards compliant. The author seems to be trying to heavily emphasize that this is not a Firefox bug, and that Firefox can legitimately do this while being standards compliant. I feel like the author was anticipating a lot of people blaming Firefox for this incident, and is attempting to shut those responses before they get made. I think that trying to write to the responses you expect from your audience unfortunately ends up with these kinds of miscommunications of intention more often than not.
- faitswulff 7y ago
  Twitter explicitly blamed Firefox for the behavior, so the anticipation is warranted.
notRobot 7y ago
Please don't use code blocks for quotes. It makes it very hard to read text on mobile, narrow viewports or via screen readers.

jefftk 7y ago

Since this handling of Content-Disposition is also in Safari it likely predates Google's involvement, and might even go all the way back to KHTML. (Disclosure: I work for Google)

dblohm7 7y ago
Mozilla dev here, I’ve been told that Gecko’s behaviour matches IE’s and Netscape’s.

detaro 7y ago

Google hasn't decided a standard here. It just happened to be the case that their heuristic avoided the problem here, so Twitters bug only caused a potential problem for Firefox.

Vinnl 7y ago
I don't think GP meant that Google decided a standard, but that the world (and in this case, Twitter) decided that whatever Google does is considered the standard. In other words, rather than checking with the standard how to indicate that content should not be cached, they simply checked whether Chrome did not cache it, and since it didn't, decided that whatever they were doing was the way to prevent caching.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Yes, that is what I meant.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]