Comment by madeofpalk

Comment by madeofpalk a day ago

> The Chrome team has also asked for formal Standards Positions from both vendors, see the Related links section. The <permission> element is an ongoing topic of discussions with other browsers and we're hoping to standardize it.

I don’t understand this proposal enough to have an opinion yet, but that sure is an interesting way to say both Firefox and WebKit oppose it.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/908#is...

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/270#iss...

shaky-carrousel 15 hours ago

Google probably wants to bring the "maybe later" anti-pattern to the browser permission system:

https://tildes.net/~tech/1d9u/im_thoroughly_done_with_my_cho...

It's a reminder that Google is not a friend, but an ad-versary, and that you aren't given a free browser to happily navigate the internet, but to be milked by the ad industry.

Reply View 0 replies

username223 a day ago

This bit from the WebKit response hits hard for me:

> Security Complexity: Proposed security measures (styling constraints, timing, and position mitigation) add substantial complexity, indicating possible fundamental issues with the approach.

"Security complexity" is never something you want to see, because it will become yet another game of whack-a-mole between browser makers and hostile websites (i.e. between Chrome and Google Ads). Does anyone believe that a standard will hold up against the AdTech industry armed with the full power of HTML+CSS+JavaScript? These are the people who brought you the "Enable push notifications? Yes/Pester-me-later" pre-prompt.

Reply View 0 replies

skybrian a day ago

Maybe they don’t want to update this web page if the other vendors change their minds? They have links instead.

Reply View 1 reply

troupo a day ago

They never update web.dev pages, and often present not-even-close-to-being-standard as done deals

Reply View | 0 replies