5 ms·

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?
        scarface74 7y ago
        That’s kind of my point....
        badrabbit 7y ago
        By an organization for use by the public at large? Yes!! Devs can still make browsers explicitly for other devs or for non-public use. If society depends on your product to function then your product must be regulated. Imagine google auto-updates chrome to stop supporting http or something, imagine the economic chaos. The whims of Googlers are not something the public should rely on. Everything from their standards compliance to their change control should be regulated,same goes for mozilla.
- 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]

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?
        scarface74 7y ago
        That’s kind of my point....
      - badrabbit 7y ago
        By an organization for use by the public at large? Yes!! Devs can still make browsers explicitly for other devs or for non-public use. If society depends on your product to function then your product must be regulated. Imagine google auto-updates chrome to stop supporting http or something, imagine the economic chaos. The whims of Googlers are not something the public should rely on. Everything from their standards compliance to their change control should be regulated,same goes for mozilla.
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]