[codetrotter]

Even though the JS ecosystem has high churn there are many many existing websites that were made years ago that continue to exist and that the browser makers don’t want to break for their users.

[mamcx]

That is why I say both editions must be supported. The old and the new. But the thing is put a deprecated warning to the old so is possible to build a better new. This also will help to clean JS/CSS.

[ethbro]

Any viable improvement to the status quo needs to take multiple stakeholders into account:

Web developers - want a clean, extensible, sane system to code against

Major consultancies (e.g. IBM) - want lock-in, wide and cheap talent pool, and minimal changes (unless it's an issue they have)

Browsers - want to render whatever they see fastest and securely

Content developers and end customers - never want to have to update their site that they bought in 1995

[wild_preference]

Because now you’ll just have two problems.

[smacktoward]

The vast majority of those existing websites are being served over HTTP. Google seems fine with breaking them for that reason.

[michaelmrose]

If this is true then almost all of them will update to https and almost none of them would bother otherwise.

So I guess the question is not if its ok for chrome to break the web for half the world its if its ok for chrome to impose this cost on site owners on behalf of users for the benefit of users.

Incidentally while there may be a lot of tiny sites that don't use https aprox 3/4 of page loads are already over https. Making myrandomhomepageaboutcats.com switch to https seems a reasonable cost for making the rest of the web more secure.