6 ms·

WebUSB is not finalised in any way. It’s a WICG draft (draft means not finalised, and WICG means explicitly unofficial), with only one shipping implementation i

WebUSB is not finalised in any way. It’s a WICG draft (draft means not finalised, and WICG means explicitly unofficial), with only one shipping implementation in browsers. (There’s also an implementation for Node.js, but I think that’s considered irrelevant.) My recollection of the rough processes is that to become a Candidate Recommendation (which is the first stage you could reasonably argue “finalised spec” corresponds to) it would need at least a second shipping implementation, and to be adopted by a working group. As it stands, there’s no short-term prospect of a second implementation: Mozilla’s current position is that WebUSB is harmful because it’s super dangerous and the risks can’t be adequately explained, and is a tracking hazard <https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb>, and WebKit have likewise consciously decided not to implement WebUSB for similar reasons (“due to fingerprinting, security, and other concerns, and where we do not yet see a path to resolving those concerns”) <https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/#anti-fingerprinting https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/#anti-fingerprinting>. That multiple browsers use the same engine and implementation is irrelevant for standardisation—otherwise Chromium would be the very definition of the standards. To show this even more clearly, WebSQL was scuttled because everyone used SQLite and there was no satisfactory way of specifying what would be permitted. Speaking frankly here: as the post author and a “WebAssembly Advocadoer @Google”, you’re speaking from a position where authority will be assumed, but in this comment you expressed some very significant errors and presented a badly biased view. This is not good.

mehdix 5y ago
Thank you for clarification. As an ill-informed reader, by reading the parent comment I was under the impression that it was already a standard. Considering the hazards, the last thing I want is random js in random website start messing with my operating system file system and USB connected devices.
RReverser 5y ago
It sounds like you're talking about the W3C standards track (correct me if I'm wrong, just guessing from the context) whereas I'm talking about the spec itself as the document and the API. Those are two different things after all. All browser engines have been following living specs even for core stuff like HTML/CSS instead of the W3C "officially finalised" standards for a while now, so I didn't bring the latter up as they weren't relevant to the conversation about the spec itself or its stability. However, I admit that I missed myself and should've called out that the spec, while stable, is still a draft - that's a mistake on my part.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > However, I admit that I missed myself and should've called out that the spec, while stable, is still a draft - that's a mistake on my part. As is never mentioning the fact that WebUSB is considered harmful by both Safari and Firefox, and hiding it behind "oh, I do hope other browsers will implement it". They won't, you are perfectly aware of it, and the reasons why they won't.
  - RReverser 5y ago
    I think I already made it clear in another thread why I'm not going to interact with your comments in particular. There's no need to try and post variations of the same comment throughout the tree. At the same time, I'm perfectly happy to respond to questions and concerns of other people like the one above who can express their thoughts without resorting to personal attacks.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > I'm perfectly happy to respond to questions and concerns of other people What a wonderful word, "respond". Not answer. Respond. That's exactly what you're doing: responding HN: This is not "finalised" Respond: oh yes, it is finalised. Because browsers [sic! plural] conform to the living standard HN: It's not implemented or supported by browsers (plural). Respond: Oh, it doesn't matter, all that matters is that Chrome implemented it (Aside: for something to be considered standard and finalised there should be at least two independent implementations. See history of why WebSQL on top of Sqlite never happened) HN: Others view this standard as harmful Respond: why are you attacking me personally > who can express their thoughts without resorting to personal attacks. To me you are just another in a long list of Chrome's talking heads who all behave absolutely identically (and their behaviour is very well documented across various internet platforms): ignore, deflect, gaslight. What you see is simply a reaction to this. To your credit you haven't stooped down to gaslighting. Want to see a different approach? Change your (as in Chrome team's) behaviour. That is, however, unlikely: Chrome stands nothing to lose by ignoring any and all concerns about its behaviour.
- chrismorgan 5y ago

mehdix 5y ago

Thank you for clarification. As an ill-informed reader, by reading the parent comment I was under the impression that it was already a standard. Considering the hazards, the last thing I want is random js in random website start messing with my operating system file system and USB connected devices.

RReverser 5y ago

It sounds like you're talking about the W3C standards track (correct me if I'm wrong, just guessing from the context) whereas I'm talking about the spec itself as the document and the API. Those are two different things after all. All browser engines have been following living specs even for core stuff like HTML/CSS instead of the W3C "officially finalised" standards for a while now, so I didn't bring the latter up as they weren't relevant to the conversation about the spec itself or its stability. However, I admit that I missed myself and should've called out that the spec, while stable, is still a draft - that's a mistake on my part.

dmitriid 5y ago
> However, I admit that I missed myself and should've called out that the spec, while stable, is still a draft - that's a mistake on my part. As is never mentioning the fact that WebUSB is considered harmful by both Safari and Firefox, and hiding it behind "oh, I do hope other browsers will implement it". They won't, you are perfectly aware of it, and the reasons why they won't.
- RReverser 5y ago
  I think I already made it clear in another thread why I'm not going to interact with your comments in particular. There's no need to try and post variations of the same comment throughout the tree. At the same time, I'm perfectly happy to respond to questions and concerns of other people like the one above who can express their thoughts without resorting to personal attacks.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > I'm perfectly happy to respond to questions and concerns of other people What a wonderful word, "respond". Not answer. Respond. That's exactly what you're doing: responding HN: This is not "finalised" Respond: oh yes, it is finalised. Because browsers [sic! plural] conform to the living standard HN: It's not implemented or supported by browsers (plural). Respond: Oh, it doesn't matter, all that matters is that Chrome implemented it (Aside: for something to be considered standard and finalised there should be at least two independent implementations. See history of why WebSQL on top of Sqlite never happened) HN: Others view this standard as harmful Respond: why are you attacking me personally > who can express their thoughts without resorting to personal attacks. To me you are just another in a long list of Chrome's talking heads who all behave absolutely identically (and their behaviour is very well documented across various internet platforms): ignore, deflect, gaslight. What you see is simply a reaction to this. To your credit you haven't stooped down to gaslighting. Want to see a different approach? Change your (as in Chrome team's) behaviour. That is, however, unlikely: Chrome stands nothing to lose by ignoring any and all concerns about its behaviour.
chrismorgan 5y ago