4 ms·

The open web is dead if the only option is to base every browser on a Google core. How do specs fit into this if every browser is just a UI shell around chrome?

The open web is dead if the only option is to base every browser on a Google core. How do specs fit into this if every browser is just a UI shell around chrome? Where is the competition driving innovation of the web platform when the only competitive landscape is how pretty you can make your toolbars and bookmarks? We need independent groups of passionate people making sure that the web platform is focused on the best end user experience. We don't always have that today, but that vision is completely dead if the web functionality is decided entirely by an advertising platform.

charcircuit 3y ago
>How do specs fit into this if every browser is just a UI shell around chrome? The browser engine is open source. You can make changes and proposals with your own fork. If you are making a browser for musicians you could try and advance the WebMIDI spec and add new functionality to it and then try to get it standardized. But as a browser developer you don't want to me spending your time implenting specs that other people have already implemented, but rather spending time working on things that improve your browser for your userbase.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  What you're describing is the opposite of the whole point of specifications. The aim wasn't to circle around a single implementation, it was to define feature specifications that would allow multiple vendors to build cross-compatable web browsers. What would be the point of open specifications if there was only a single implementation?
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >What would be the point of open specifications if there was only a single implementation? I never said there was? When you write the first implementation then there will only be a single implementation, but that's how counting works. 1 comes after 0. Anyone is free to write another implementation.
dmarcos 3y ago
Keep in mind that when using chromium you can innovate on any part of the stack not just the UI. You can focus on what matters to you: You can reimplement CSS animations, the network stack, add any new APIs, define any privacy or security policies… A robust and reusable browser engine lowers the barrier of entry for anyone to innovate and differentiate. Browser compatibility is close to solved since everyone shares most of the implementation. Better user experience across the board at lower cost. Specific examples are Brave, Opera, or more recently the Meta Browser shipping in the Meta Quest: very small team now leading the WebXR standard. it wouldn’t be possible without Chromium.

charcircuit 3y ago

>How do specs fit into this if every browser is just a UI shell around chrome? The browser engine is open source. You can make changes and proposals with your own fork. If you are making a browser for musicians you could try and advance the WebMIDI spec and add new functionality to it and then try to get it standardized. But as a browser developer you don't want to me spending your time implenting specs that other people have already implemented, but rather spending time working on things that improve your browser for your userbase.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
What you're describing is the opposite of the whole point of specifications. The aim wasn't to circle around a single implementation, it was to define feature specifications that would allow multiple vendors to build cross-compatable web browsers. What would be the point of open specifications if there was only a single implementation?
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >What would be the point of open specifications if there was only a single implementation? I never said there was? When you write the first implementation then there will only be a single implementation, but that's how counting works. 1 comes after 0. Anyone is free to write another implementation.

dmarcos 3y ago

Keep in mind that when using chromium you can innovate on any part of the stack not just the UI. You can focus on what matters to you: You can reimplement CSS animations, the network stack, add any new APIs, define any privacy or security policies… A robust and reusable browser engine lowers the barrier of entry for anyone to innovate and differentiate. Browser compatibility is close to solved since everyone shares most of the implementation. Better user experience across the board at lower cost. Specific examples are Brave, Opera, or more recently the Meta Browser shipping in the Meta Quest: very small team now leading the WebXR standard. it wouldn’t be possible without Chromium.