3 ms·

2 things bother me about this proposal: https://web.dev/web-bundles/ https://web.dev/web-bundles/ 1) The use cases discussed by Google are largely offline. So

by _qulr 6y ago

2 things bother me about this proposal: https://web.dev/web-bundles/ https://web.dev/web-bundles/ 1) The use cases discussed by Google are largely offline. So how is this a "web" standard when it doesn't involve the web? If Google wants to implement an offline app format, that's their prerogative, but it's not clear to me why it should be enshrined as a web standard, just because it happens to use HTML/CSS/JS. 2) Google keeps talking about it as a tool for you and your "friend". I'm suspicious that this is the real motivation. Is the Google Chrome team really very concerned about in-flight entertainment? (Especially now when hardly anyone is flying anymore.) A number of people have suggested that the real motivation here is AMP. The "spin" in Google's proposal is too "friendly".

xg15 6y ago
Not a long time ago, the understanding was that browsers were mostly simple renderers for HTML with a HTTP client built in. You could serve HTML from a local file system or from a server without much difference. It's only recently that due to security reasons, the ability to load HTML from local files was greatly restricted - so I personally would be pretty happy if loading pages from non-web sources is on the table again.
_qulr 6y ago
To me the key part is this: "Loads in the context of its origin when cryptographically signed by its publisher" Then it feels like a bit of misdirection to immediately pivot to "easy to share and usable without an internet connection". What if you do have an internet connection? What if the real goal is actually to republish entire web sites on google.com, i.e., AMP?
- AgentME 6y ago
  >What if the real goal is actually to republish entire web sites on google.com, i.e., AMP? Why would Google have hosting everything on their domain be an end goal? WebBundles address the technical limitation that causes AMP to serve everything from Google's own domain.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > Why would Google have hosting everything on their domain be an end goal? To become the internet! Much like AOL was in the past, kind of like how Facebook is now. Each of the big tech corps is trying to set up a walled garden that you never leave. In the beginning, Google Search was not a destination, it was merely the way to find your destination. But now a large percentage of searches never actually leave Google. The data is re-presented by Google Search. Google has a search engine, DNS, browser, email service, office suite... oh yeah, and a mobile platform. All of which have millions or billions of users. They just need to host web sites too in order to create their own web-on-the-web. The Google Internet. It's about controlling the entire "experience". Think about it: the web is supposed to be "free" (as in freedom), but increasingly web site owners have to design everything around Google: ranking high in Google Search, having the right format for AMP, rendering "correctly" in Google Chrome. Even being forced to adopt https (read Dave Winer on that issue) or be erased.

by _qulr 6y ago

xg15 6y ago

Not a long time ago, the understanding was that browsers were mostly simple renderers for HTML with a HTTP client built in. You could serve HTML from a local file system or from a server without much difference. It's only recently that due to security reasons, the ability to load HTML from local files was greatly restricted - so I personally would be pretty happy if loading pages from non-web sources is on the table again.

_qulr 6y ago

To me the key part is this: "Loads in the context of its origin when cryptographically signed by its publisher" Then it feels like a bit of misdirection to immediately pivot to "easy to share and usable without an internet connection". What if you do have an internet connection? What if the real goal is actually to republish entire web sites on google.com, i.e., AMP?

AgentME 6y ago
>What if the real goal is actually to republish entire web sites on google.com, i.e., AMP? Why would Google have hosting everything on their domain be an end goal? WebBundles address the technical limitation that causes AMP to serve everything from Google's own domain.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Why would Google have hosting everything on their domain be an end goal? To become the internet! Much like AOL was in the past, kind of like how Facebook is now. Each of the big tech corps is trying to set up a walled garden that you never leave. In the beginning, Google Search was not a destination, it was merely the way to find your destination. But now a large percentage of searches never actually leave Google. The data is re-presented by Google Search. Google has a search engine, DNS, browser, email service, office suite... oh yeah, and a mobile platform. All of which have millions or billions of users. They just need to host web sites too in order to create their own web-on-the-web. The Google Internet. It's about controlling the entire "experience". Think about it: the web is supposed to be "free" (as in freedom), but increasingly web site owners have to design everything around Google: ranking high in Google Search, having the right format for AMP, rendering "correctly" in Google Chrome. Even being forced to adopt https (read Dave Winer on that issue) or be erased.