2 ms·

Uh... if it's not "existing" enough to enable in Chrome, what makes you think it's "existing" enough to enable in Mozilla? But also, see the Pepper discussions

Uh... if it's not "existing" enough to enable in Chrome, what makes you think it's "existing" enough to enable in Mozilla? But also, see the Pepper discussions through these various threads. "Existing" for PNaCl also includes being specified enough to actually be implementable, which runs straight into Pepper.

dragonwriter 14y ago
> if it's not "existing" enough to enable in Chrome? It exists, is included in Chrome, and users can enable it. Its not enabled by default, but it definitely exists and is deployed in the stable version of Chrome (and not just the most recent stable version.) > what makes you think it's "existing" enough to enable in Mozilla? There's a difference between "Mozilla can't use PNaCl because it doesn't exist" and "Mozilla doesn't want to use PNaCl because it hasn't reached the maturity point where Google is ready to enable it by default in Chrome". The first relies on a false premise. The second doesn't (though its still a false statement; Mozilla doesn't want to use PNaCl because they are committed to JavaScript-as-the-engine-of-behavior for the browser; their primary objection to every other alternative is that it isn't JavaScript. This is a perfectly legitimate preference, and there is no need to confuse the issue with false explanations.) > "Existing" for PNaCl also includes being specified enough to actually be implementable, which runs straight into Pepper. No, that's not what "existing" means. That's not to say that issues with the degree to which the Pepper API is well-specified aren't potentially the basis for legitimate opposition to using Pepper+PNaCl in browsers, its just completely nonsense to say that PNaCl doesn't exist (when it manifestly does and is widely distributed). If you want to argue that Pepper is underspecified, then argue that Pepper is underspecified, not that PNaCl doesn't exist. Because the first may or may not be a legitimate argument, but the second is just nonsense.

dragonwriter 14y ago

> if it's not "existing" enough to enable in Chrome? It exists, is included in Chrome, and users can enable it. Its not enabled by default, but it definitely exists and is deployed in the stable version of Chrome (and not just the most recent stable version.) > what makes you think it's "existing" enough to enable in Mozilla? There's a difference between "Mozilla can't use PNaCl because it doesn't exist" and "Mozilla doesn't want to use PNaCl because it hasn't reached the maturity point where Google is ready to enable it by default in Chrome". The first relies on a false premise. The second doesn't (though its still a false statement; Mozilla doesn't want to use PNaCl because they are committed to JavaScript-as-the-engine-of-behavior for the browser; their primary objection to every other alternative is that it isn't JavaScript. This is a perfectly legitimate preference, and there is no need to confuse the issue with false explanations.) > "Existing" for PNaCl also includes being specified enough to actually be implementable, which runs straight into Pepper. No, that's not what "existing" means. That's not to say that issues with the degree to which the Pepper API is well-specified aren't potentially the basis for legitimate opposition to using Pepper+PNaCl in browsers, its just completely nonsense to say that PNaCl doesn't exist (when it manifestly does and is widely distributed). If you want to argue that Pepper is underspecified, then argue that Pepper is underspecified, not that PNaCl doesn't exist. Because the first may or may not be a legitimate argument, but the second is just nonsense.