2 ms·

Status of specification: "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." Status in Chrome: shipping in 131 Expect people claiming this is a v

by troupo 2y ago

Status of specification: "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." Status in Chrome: shipping in 131 Expect people claiming this is a vital standard that Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ https://whatpwacando.today/ uncritically just include this

meiraleal 2y ago
Expect Apple claiming this is a not vital standard and Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ https://whatpwacando.today/ to obviously just include this
- troupo 2y ago
  Which part of "is not a w3c standard and not any standards track" do you not understand? I am not surprised sites like that include Chrome-only non-standards, they've done this for years claiming impartiality
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    Cry me a river. Apple doesn't need you to defend their strategic and intentional PWA boycott.
    - troupo 2y ago
      Which part of "is not a w3c standard and not any standards track" do you not understand? Do you understand that for something to become a standard, it needs two independent implementations? And a consensus on API? Do you understand that "not on any standards track" means it's Chrome and only Chrome pushing this? That Firefox isn't interested in this either? Do you understand that blaming Apple for everything is borderline psychotic? And that Chrome implementing something at neck-breaking pace doesn't make it a standard? Here's Mozilla's extensive analysis and conclusion "harmful" that Google sycophants and Apple haters couldn't care less about: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/431#issuecomment-690860040 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/431#is...
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        What part of "cry me a river" you didn't understand? Don't go crazy because at least one of the browsers propose things that move the web forward. Geez, you should take a break from the internet. So many "?"
        troupo 2y ago
        > Don't go crazy because at least one of the browsers propose things that move the web forward. No, they shape the web in an image that is beneficial to Google, and Google only. > Geez, you should take a break from the internet. So many "?" Indeed, so may "?" because, as you showed, Google sycophants cannot understand why these questions are important.
        pjmlp 2y ago
        A generation lost in Internet Explorer....
      - nulld3v 2y ago
        There are a lot of reasons why people have such extreme differing opinions on this. I for one, am still salty about the death of WebSQL due to "needing independent implementations". Frankly put, I think that rule is entirely BS and needs to be completely removed. Sure, there is only one implementation of WebSQL (SQLite) but it is extremely well audited, documented and understood. Now that WebSQL is gone, what has the standards committee done to replace it? Well, now they suggest using IndexedDB or bringing your own SQLite binary using WASM. IndexedDB is very low level, which is why almost no one uses it directly. And it also has garbage performance, to the point where it's literally faster for you run SQLite on top of IndexedDB instead: https://jlongster.com/future-sql-web https://jlongster.com/future-sql-web So ultimately if you want to have any data storage on the web that isn't just key-value, you now have to ship your own SQLite binary or use some custom JS storage library. So end users now have to download a giant binary blob, that is also completely unauditable. And now that there is no standard storage solution, everybody uses a slew of different libraries to try to emulate SQL/NoSQL storage. And this storage is emulated on top of IndexedDB/LocalStorage so they are all trying to mangle high level data into key-value storage so it ends up being incredibly difficult to inspect as an end-user. As a reminder: when the standards committee fails to create a good standard, the result is not "everybody doesn't do this because there is no standard", it is "everybody will still do this but they will do it 1 million different ways".

by troupo 2y ago

meiraleal 2y ago

Expect Apple claiming this is a not vital standard and Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ https://whatpwacando.today/ to obviously just include this

troupo 2y ago
Which part of "is not a w3c standard and not any standards track" do you not understand? I am not surprised sites like that include Chrome-only non-standards, they've done this for years claiming impartiality
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Cry me a river. Apple doesn't need you to defend their strategic and intentional PWA boycott.
  - troupo 2y ago
    Which part of "is not a w3c standard and not any standards track" do you not understand? Do you understand that for something to become a standard, it needs two independent implementations? And a consensus on API? Do you understand that "not on any standards track" means it's Chrome and only Chrome pushing this? That Firefox isn't interested in this either? Do you understand that blaming Apple for everything is borderline psychotic? And that Chrome implementing something at neck-breaking pace doesn't make it a standard? Here's Mozilla's extensive analysis and conclusion "harmful" that Google sycophants and Apple haters couldn't care less about: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/431#issuecomment-690860040 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/431#is...
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      What part of "cry me a river" you didn't understand? Don't go crazy because at least one of the browsers propose things that move the web forward. Geez, you should take a break from the internet. So many "?"
      - troupo 2y ago
        > Don't go crazy because at least one of the browsers propose things that move the web forward. No, they shape the web in an image that is beneficial to Google, and Google only. > Geez, you should take a break from the internet. So many "?" Indeed, so may "?" because, as you showed, Google sycophants cannot understand why these questions are important.
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        A generation lost in Internet Explorer....
    - nulld3v 2y ago
      There are a lot of reasons why people have such extreme differing opinions on this. I for one, am still salty about the death of WebSQL due to "needing independent implementations". Frankly put, I think that rule is entirely BS and needs to be completely removed. Sure, there is only one implementation of WebSQL (SQLite) but it is extremely well audited, documented and understood. Now that WebSQL is gone, what has the standards committee done to replace it? Well, now they suggest using IndexedDB or bringing your own SQLite binary using WASM. IndexedDB is very low level, which is why almost no one uses it directly. And it also has garbage performance, to the point where it's literally faster for you run SQLite on top of IndexedDB instead: https://jlongster.com/future-sql-web https://jlongster.com/future-sql-web So ultimately if you want to have any data storage on the web that isn't just key-value, you now have to ship your own SQLite binary or use some custom JS storage library. So end users now have to download a giant binary blob, that is also completely unauditable. And now that there is no standard storage solution, everybody uses a slew of different libraries to try to emulate SQL/NoSQL storage. And this storage is emulated on top of IndexedDB/LocalStorage so they are all trying to mangle high level data into key-value storage so it ends up being incredibly difficult to inspect as an end-user. As a reminder: when the standards committee fails to create a good standard, the result is not "everybody doesn't do this because there is no standard", it is "everybody will still do this but they will do it 1 million different ways".