4 ms·

Mozilla and Apple have publicly announced that they will not implement the Bluetooth and Battery APIs [1][2], which makes them definitely Chrome proprietary API

Mozilla and Apple have publicly announced that they will not implement the Bluetooth and Battery APIs [1][2], which makes them definitely Chrome proprietary APIs. These kind of proprietary APIs are exactly what Microsoft did 10-20 years ago as part of their "embrace, extend and exterminate" process. They extended IE with their proprietary APIs (such as HTML+TIME), which other browsers never implemented. Bluetooth, Battery and many other Chrome APIs are just Google's and Microsoft's new attempt to "embrace, extend and exterminate" other browsers. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16-web-apis-in-safari-due-to-privacy-concerns/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16... [2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 6y ago
Mozilla and Apple have publicly announced that they will not implement the Bluetooth and Battery APIs [1][2], which makes them definitely Chrome proprietary APIs. I realise this is a bit pedantic, but this is wrong. They're W3C specs that Mozilla and Apple have chosen not to support. Calling them "Chrome proprietary APIs" is loaded with unnecessary and unhelpful subtext.
- realityking 6y ago
  If we really want to be pedantic, then I must point out that they're not W3C standards and likely never will be. - Battery Status API was on a standards track but the last published version is a Candidate Recommendation from 2016 - Web Bluetooth is just a Community Group Draft. It's not even formally adopted by a Working Group. Neither is likely to progress to Recommendation status as the W3C - IMHO, wisely - requires to independent implementations before a specification is adopted as a web standard.
  - tssva 6y ago
    If we really want to be pedantic the post your comment refers to never said they were W3C standards. It referred to them as W3C specs which since they are api specifications and published by the W3C is accurate even if they are not standards.
    - mumblemumble 6y ago
      It seems like we're really far down the "arguing semantics" curve at this point. The practical consideration is: These APIs are only supported by one browser. Other major browsers have announced that they have no intention of supporting them. Therefore, use them with caution. If it's an Electron app and nothing but an Electron app, you're probably good to go. If, OTOH, it's a web page or site, and you don't want to alienate non-Chrome users (which would include all iOS users), then you should make sure you aren't doing anything janky when these APIs aren't available or don't work as advertised.
      - tssva 6y ago
        If we really want to be pedantic these APIs are only supported by one browser engine but are supported by multiple browsers.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        mumblemumble 6y ago
        Fair point. I do tend to forget about Edge and Opera. I think the general thrust of what I'm trying to say stands, though: The grotty procedural details surrounding W3C standards are something that can be left to the W3C to worry about. For those of us who think C-SPAN is boring, the presence of a particular webpage at a particular location on the W3C's website serves as a really bad proxy for browser support statistics.
        tssva 6y ago
        It goes well beyond Opera and Edge. Looking at the netmarketshare stats for August there are 14 browsers which use the blink engine and have a reported market share. Brave is not on the list since it currently reports itself as Chrome. 2 of those browsers have a market share higher than Firefox, Microsoft Edge and Samsung Internet Browser. Samsung Internet Browser is a mobile only browser which ships on Samsung phones and tablets. Removing those and Chrome the remaining 9 blink based browsers combined still have a higher market share than Firefox.
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  Just to be clear, "Battery Status" is not a "W3C spec". The latest published version at https://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/ https://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/ is "Candidate Recommendation", and has been stuck there for over four years, precisely because it's failing to meet the bar to progress to "Recommendation". And the reason it's failing to meet that bar is because of fundamental and unaddressed privacy problems with the proposal. Calling it a "Chrome proprietary API" is exactly correct at this point.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I remember Microsoft was generally pretty good about submitting their stuff to the W3C as part of the embrace, extend, extinguish policy - example the Note on VML https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-VML https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-VML
z3t4 6y ago
Bluetooth API would be very nice. Now you are forced to make an iOS app.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

onion2k 6y ago

Mozilla and Apple have publicly announced that they will not implement the Bluetooth and Battery APIs [1][2], which makes them definitely Chrome proprietary APIs. I realise this is a bit pedantic, but this is wrong. They're W3C specs that Mozilla and Apple have chosen not to support. Calling them "Chrome proprietary APIs" is loaded with unnecessary and unhelpful subtext.

realityking 6y ago
If we really want to be pedantic, then I must point out that they're not W3C standards and likely never will be. - Battery Status API was on a standards track but the last published version is a Candidate Recommendation from 2016 - Web Bluetooth is just a Community Group Draft. It's not even formally adopted by a Working Group. Neither is likely to progress to Recommendation status as the W3C - IMHO, wisely - requires to independent implementations before a specification is adopted as a web standard.
- tssva 6y ago
  If we really want to be pedantic the post your comment refers to never said they were W3C standards. It referred to them as W3C specs which since they are api specifications and published by the W3C is accurate even if they are not standards.
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    It seems like we're really far down the "arguing semantics" curve at this point. The practical consideration is: These APIs are only supported by one browser. Other major browsers have announced that they have no intention of supporting them. Therefore, use them with caution. If it's an Electron app and nothing but an Electron app, you're probably good to go. If, OTOH, it's a web page or site, and you don't want to alienate non-Chrome users (which would include all iOS users), then you should make sure you aren't doing anything janky when these APIs aren't available or don't work as advertised.
    - tssva 6y ago
      If we really want to be pedantic these APIs are only supported by one browser engine but are supported by multiple browsers.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - mumblemumble 6y ago
        Fair point. I do tend to forget about Edge and Opera. I think the general thrust of what I'm trying to say stands, though: The grotty procedural details surrounding W3C standards are something that can be left to the W3C to worry about. For those of us who think C-SPAN is boring, the presence of a particular webpage at a particular location on the W3C's website serves as a really bad proxy for browser support statistics.
      - tssva 6y ago
        It goes well beyond Opera and Edge. Looking at the netmarketshare stats for August there are 14 browsers which use the blink engine and have a reported market share. Brave is not on the list since it currently reports itself as Chrome. 2 of those browsers have a market share higher than Firefox, Microsoft Edge and Samsung Internet Browser. Samsung Internet Browser is a mobile only browser which ships on Samsung phones and tablets. Removing those and Chrome the remaining 9 blink based browsers combined still have a higher market share than Firefox.
bzbarsky 6y ago
Just to be clear, "Battery Status" is not a "W3C spec". The latest published version at https://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/ https://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/ is "Candidate Recommendation", and has been stuck there for over four years, precisely because it's failing to meet the bar to progress to "Recommendation". And the reason it's failing to meet that bar is because of fundamental and unaddressed privacy problems with the proposal. Calling it a "Chrome proprietary API" is exactly correct at this point.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I remember Microsoft was generally pretty good about submitting their stuff to the W3C as part of the embrace, extend, extinguish policy - example the Note on VML https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-VML https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-VML

z3t4 6y ago

Bluetooth API would be very nice. Now you are forced to make an iOS app.