5 ms·

Why should any of those be web browser APIs? I don't want those anywhere near my browser. They all sound horrible. Edit: Sorry, I wrote this too fast and didn'

Why should any of those be web browser APIs? I don't want those anywhere near my browser. They all sound horrible. Edit: Sorry, I wrote this too fast and didn't finish my thought. To clarity, I meant they sound horrible from a privacy perspective, and I don't think some random website should even have to option to access those APIs. The web has enough tracking and malicious sites as it is.

sangnoir 6y ago
So if you don't like something - it shouldn't exist, and no one else should have it?
- Bedon292 6y ago
  That is not what I said. I asked what the justification for them existing is. None of them sounded valuable, and seemed like just additional ways for ads and malicious sites to track you. So what are the up sides? I actually want to understand.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    None of them sounded valuable to you - I have no problem imagining how those APIs could be useful (e.g. some simple apps may be replaced by a web application). One can easily apply your argument against access ramps ("My establishment already has stairs, a ramp doesn't sound valuable")
    - zepto 6y ago
      Can you see how they also create privacy problems?
      - sangnoir 6y ago
        If ramps hypothetically did create privacy problems, would you still wish them out of existence, despite their utility to other people?
echelon 6y ago
Imagine if apps as they exist today were actually running on a web platform. Apps indistinguishable to the ones you use today. They're downloaded over www. They call device APIs But they're written in Rust or WASM or something. Visit Netflix.com and suddenly you have the native Netflix app instantaneously on your device. And it works just the same as the one you use today. That's what I want to see. The web isn't just HTML and JavaScript. It's not just documents or web apps. It can be native too. It's a protected runtime. And it'll be fast.
- Bedon292 6y ago
  I honestly think that is a massive privacy issue. Letting the web browser have any access those API is practically begging for abuse. There are enough privacy and tracking issues already with what they have access to without those being added on. The negative far outweighs any positive you have mentioned. Should there be better faster options for applications to run? Absolutely. Should they run in the web browser? I don't think so.
  - com2kid 6y ago
    How is clicking a link to a web page and tapping "accept" any different than clicking a link that loads an app store entry and tapping install? Heck use the same permission dialogues.
    - echelon 6y ago
      And the same sandboxing.
    - Bedon292 6y ago
      Who manages those permissions? The browser? The OS? Is it different dialogs than the OS? If not, you are now giving a browser the ability to delegate those permissions. Is it the same level of granularity? If I visit one page, say facebook and it gets permission. And then visit another page which embeds Facebook, does it still have all those permissions there? If I visit a page, and it hits 60 different URLs under the hood am I getting 60 accept buttons or blanket accepting all of them? As I see it, there is a ton of difference in scope there.

sangnoir 6y ago

So if you don't like something - it shouldn't exist, and no one else should have it?

Bedon292 6y ago
That is not what I said. I asked what the justification for them existing is. None of them sounded valuable, and seemed like just additional ways for ads and malicious sites to track you. So what are the up sides? I actually want to understand.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  None of them sounded valuable to you - I have no problem imagining how those APIs could be useful (e.g. some simple apps may be replaced by a web application). One can easily apply your argument against access ramps ("My establishment already has stairs, a ramp doesn't sound valuable")
  - zepto 6y ago
    Can you see how they also create privacy problems?
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      If ramps hypothetically did create privacy problems, would you still wish them out of existence, despite their utility to other people?

echelon 6y ago

Imagine if apps as they exist today were actually running on a web platform. Apps indistinguishable to the ones you use today. They're downloaded over www. They call device APIs But they're written in Rust or WASM or something. Visit Netflix.com and suddenly you have the native Netflix app instantaneously on your device. And it works just the same as the one you use today. That's what I want to see. The web isn't just HTML and JavaScript. It's not just documents or web apps. It can be native too. It's a protected runtime. And it'll be fast.

Bedon292 6y ago
I honestly think that is a massive privacy issue. Letting the web browser have any access those API is practically begging for abuse. There are enough privacy and tracking issues already with what they have access to without those being added on. The negative far outweighs any positive you have mentioned. Should there be better faster options for applications to run? Absolutely. Should they run in the web browser? I don't think so.
- com2kid 6y ago
  How is clicking a link to a web page and tapping "accept" any different than clicking a link that loads an app store entry and tapping install? Heck use the same permission dialogues.
  - echelon 6y ago
    And the same sandboxing.
  - Bedon292 6y ago
    Who manages those permissions? The browser? The OS? Is it different dialogs than the OS? If not, you are now giving a browser the ability to delegate those permissions. Is it the same level of granularity? If I visit one page, say facebook and it gets permission. And then visit another page which embeds Facebook, does it still have all those permissions there? If I visit a page, and it hits 60 different URLs under the hood am I getting 60 accept buttons or blanket accepting all of them? As I see it, there is a ton of difference in scope there.