2 ms·

I'm curious: what are the web standards/specifications that webkit does not implement, efficiently or at all, that prevent all but niche or insignificantly impo

I'm curious: what are the web standards/specifications that webkit does not implement, efficiently or at all, that prevent all but niche or insignificantly important functionality? For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? My quick and uninformed take is just: video. As a casual web developer, it feels very much like the CSS, HTML, and Web API specifications are well well beyond what is critical and deep into the "specifications capture" phase of how companies compete.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
> For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? Wasm, 3D acceleration, PWA, geolocalisation, USB access, sandboxed local storage and offline mode, accelerometer and touch support. If one thing, the web has declined in the past decade with a lot of things which could and should be on the web moving to phone apps where gatekeepers can take their toll because phone browsers are gimped.
giobox 1y ago
While it's easy to dismiss some of these as niche, many of them such as file system access and USB device support would completely change how some software could be delivered. By not supporting these, one is forced to make a native app in many cases. With support for some of these standards, entire classes of application could be delivered via cross platform web applications. Imagine being able to install firmware updates on USB devices just by visiting the manufacturers website, for one. While we can argue about safety, the file system access problem can be solved in the exact same way apple solved it for native apps, with permission dialogs etc and only exposing the selected items when attempting to access resources on the device. This is indeed the approach Chrome/Edge use today. If you look at the browser API specs Apple has chosen not to implement and Chrome/Edge has historically, it's hard not to feel Apple is trying to protect its own native app store at times. There are obvious self-interested reasons for Apple to protect it's own store/native app system; even "free" applications often generate revenue from in-app purchase transaction fees or subscriptions. If developers can more easily avoid shipping a native app, they can also more easily avoid paying Apple fees.
- dagmx 1y ago
  Which of those that you mentioned are web standards though? They’re all google pushed features afaik but not part of any standardization.
  - slightlyoff 1y ago
    That's not how any of this works; https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-iamus/ https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-i...
    - dagmx 1y ago
      That opinion piece doesn’t refute that they’re not standards and it doesn’t make a compelling argument that non-standards should have adoption.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago

> For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? Wasm, 3D acceleration, PWA, geolocalisation, USB access, sandboxed local storage and offline mode, accelerometer and touch support. If one thing, the web has declined in the past decade with a lot of things which could and should be on the web moving to phone apps where gatekeepers can take their toll because phone browsers are gimped.

giobox 1y ago

While it's easy to dismiss some of these as niche, many of them such as file system access and USB device support would completely change how some software could be delivered. By not supporting these, one is forced to make a native app in many cases. With support for some of these standards, entire classes of application could be delivered via cross platform web applications. Imagine being able to install firmware updates on USB devices just by visiting the manufacturers website, for one. While we can argue about safety, the file system access problem can be solved in the exact same way apple solved it for native apps, with permission dialogs etc and only exposing the selected items when attempting to access resources on the device. This is indeed the approach Chrome/Edge use today. If you look at the browser API specs Apple has chosen not to implement and Chrome/Edge has historically, it's hard not to feel Apple is trying to protect its own native app store at times. There are obvious self-interested reasons for Apple to protect it's own store/native app system; even "free" applications often generate revenue from in-app purchase transaction fees or subscriptions. If developers can more easily avoid shipping a native app, they can also more easily avoid paying Apple fees.

dagmx 1y ago
Which of those that you mentioned are web standards though? They’re all google pushed features afaik but not part of any standardization.
- slightlyoff 1y ago
  That's not how any of this works; https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-iamus/ https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-i...
  - dagmx 1y ago
    That opinion piece doesn’t refute that they’re not standards and it doesn’t make a compelling argument that non-standards should have adoption.