4 ms·

NaCl uses the NPAPI which is pretty standard, it's used for flash for example and is supported by Firefox, Opera and webkit. This means NaCl could be plugged i

NaCl uses the NPAPI which is pretty standard, it's used for flash for example and is supported by Firefox, Opera and webkit. This means NaCl could be plugged in those browsers without being reimplemented.

zobzu 15y ago
"Could be". Will not be unless they have no choice to survive. Google knows that, everyone knows that. Not a web standard.
pcwalton 15y ago
For now, that is true. However, NaCl is moving to the Pepper API, which is a proprietary Chrome API for plugins.
- souichi 15y ago
  > proprietary Chrome API You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. From Wikipedia: """Proprietary software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder. The licensee is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, while restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering.""" Nothing of this applies to Pepper API or NaCl. Mozilla can implement Pepper API and NaCl or can even just take NaCl as whole because it is, oh boy, oh boy, open source with a permissive license.
  - beaumartinez 15y ago
    "Proprietary" ≠ "proprietary software".
    - esrauch 15y ago
      You think proprietary software is software that you can't use without license, but proprietary API is something other than an API that you can't use without license?
  - pcwalton 15y ago
    I mean the dictionary definition of "proprietary": controlled by a single proprietor, in this case Google. Google proposed the Pepper API on the plugin-futures mailing list a year or two ago, but Mozilla and Apple believed that it was unnecessary to maintain a parallel Pepper API for plugins to use when Web APIs were already there (and could be improved where they were not sufficient). Google implemented and pushed Pepper anyway. Thus, proprietary. Likewise, Google is not open to input regarding the direction of NaCl, or whether it is a good idea for the Web. It is also proprietary. Whether proprietary-but-open-source technologies are good for the Web is a separate discussion -- clearly, Mozilla and Google disagree. But it's unarguable that NaCl and Pepper are proprietary technologies.
gcp 15y ago
So, it's about as open as Flash, which is a free standard we're all happy about. No, wait...
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  It's not like Flash because the primary implementation of Flash by Adobe is not open source whereas NaCl is.
  - ufo 15y ago
    An open source implementation is not the same as an open standard and is still not enough. By not having a separate standard oter browsers would either have to support bug-for-bug compatibility with NaCl or be forced to use the reference implementation without any changes (so it might as well have been distributed as a obfuscated binary).

zobzu 15y ago

"Could be". Will not be unless they have no choice to survive. Google knows that, everyone knows that. Not a web standard.

pcwalton 15y ago

For now, that is true. However, NaCl is moving to the Pepper API, which is a proprietary Chrome API for plugins.

souichi 15y ago
> proprietary Chrome API You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. From Wikipedia: """Proprietary software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder. The licensee is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, while restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering.""" Nothing of this applies to Pepper API or NaCl. Mozilla can implement Pepper API and NaCl or can even just take NaCl as whole because it is, oh boy, oh boy, open source with a permissive license.
- beaumartinez 15y ago
  "Proprietary" ≠ "proprietary software".
  - esrauch 15y ago
    You think proprietary software is software that you can't use without license, but proprietary API is something other than an API that you can't use without license?
- pcwalton 15y ago
  I mean the dictionary definition of "proprietary": controlled by a single proprietor, in this case Google. Google proposed the Pepper API on the plugin-futures mailing list a year or two ago, but Mozilla and Apple believed that it was unnecessary to maintain a parallel Pepper API for plugins to use when Web APIs were already there (and could be improved where they were not sufficient). Google implemented and pushed Pepper anyway. Thus, proprietary. Likewise, Google is not open to input regarding the direction of NaCl, or whether it is a good idea for the Web. It is also proprietary. Whether proprietary-but-open-source technologies are good for the Web is a separate discussion -- clearly, Mozilla and Google disagree. But it's unarguable that NaCl and Pepper are proprietary technologies.

gcp 15y ago

So, it's about as open as Flash, which is a free standard we're all happy about. No, wait...

patrickaljord 15y ago
It's not like Flash because the primary implementation of Flash by Adobe is not open source whereas NaCl is.
- ufo 15y ago
  An open source implementation is not the same as an open standard and is still not enough. By not having a separate standard oter browsers would either have to support bug-for-bug compatibility with NaCl or be forced to use the reference implementation without any changes (so it might as well have been distributed as a obfuscated binary).