4 ms·

Why are you bringing this up, when it’s not been implemented as a metric here, but because Apple requires it for iOS.

by manmal 1y ago

hamandcheese 1y ago
> but because Apple requires it for iOS Therefore it is a metric used by Apple.
- fmajid 1y ago
  In the spirit of malicious compliance, thus being a bad metric would probably be a feature in their book.
  - troupo 1y ago
    There are literally no other metrics. Web Platform Tests were literally a project to align browsers on compatible implementations of a bunch of web APIs. Started by Opera and w3c and maintained by w3c https://www.bocoup.com/blog/wpt-an-overview-and-history https://www.bocoup.com/blog/wpt-an-overview-and-history
  - anextio 1y ago
    Malicious compliance? The EU DMA says they have to allow third party browser engines access to the same resources (the JIT) that Safari has. It specifically allows them to place reasonable requirements on those third party alternatives: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Access to rwx memory is inherently dangerous, and it's completely reasonable to expect third parties to have proven that they are serious about producing a usable browser engine before putting such a risky product on the market for consumers to download. The law does not require them to allow any third party application to access the JIT, only a third party application that competes with Safari (a usable web browser).
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Yes, but that doesn't require rendering performance or anything like that, but absence of security problems. You can't justify a requirement for a minimum level of performance or some capability. You can justify a requirement of a guaranteed absence of security bugs, provided that that's a standard you impose on yourself throughout the system.
Klonoar 1y ago
This is a headline that is very easy to misread and or misunderstand. I don’t find their comment to be that out of place at all.
- manmal 1y ago
  Root comment is lecturing the ladybird team about not using this suite as a metric, which is totally uncalled for. That’s what I’m trying to convey.
  - Klonoar 1y ago
    "lecturing" is carrying a lot of needless weight here. Their comment doesn't read like that, they're just pointing out that the metric itself isn't what it seems to be.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

Why are you bringing this up, when it’s not been implemented as a metric here, but because Apple requires it for iOS.

by manmal 1y ago

Why are you bringing this up, when it’s not been implemented as a metric here, but because Apple requires it for iOS.

hamandcheese 1y ago

> but because Apple requires it for iOS Therefore it is a metric used by Apple.

fmajid 1y ago
In the spirit of malicious compliance, thus being a bad metric would probably be a feature in their book.
- troupo 1y ago
  There are literally no other metrics. Web Platform Tests were literally a project to align browsers on compatible implementations of a bunch of web APIs. Started by Opera and w3c and maintained by w3c https://www.bocoup.com/blog/wpt-an-overview-and-history https://www.bocoup.com/blog/wpt-an-overview-and-history
- anextio 1y ago
  Malicious compliance? The EU DMA says they have to allow third party browser engines access to the same resources (the JIT) that Safari has. It specifically allows them to place reasonable requirements on those third party alternatives: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Access to rwx memory is inherently dangerous, and it's completely reasonable to expect third parties to have proven that they are serious about producing a usable browser engine before putting such a risky product on the market for consumers to download. The law does not require them to allow any third party application to access the JIT, only a third party application that competes with Safari (a usable web browser).
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't require rendering performance or anything like that, but absence of security problems. You can't justify a requirement for a minimum level of performance or some capability. You can justify a requirement of a guaranteed absence of security bugs, provided that that's a standard you impose on yourself throughout the system.

Klonoar 1y ago

This is a headline that is very easy to misread and or misunderstand. I don’t find their comment to be that out of place at all.

manmal 1y ago
Root comment is lecturing the ladybird team about not using this suite as a metric, which is totally uncalled for. That’s what I’m trying to convey.
- Klonoar 1y ago
  "lecturing" is carrying a lot of needless weight here. Their comment doesn't read like that, they're just pointing out that the metric itself isn't what it seems to be.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]