[BoorishBears]

You don't even understand the term but you're being so dismissive. Maybe read the full thread and then comment.

By definition their stance is 100% about "a big web". It's an ideology that the browser shouldn't become another OS competing vs one that it should.

And while one side of the conversation tends to see their approach as 100% correct, the history was people downloading random exes with 0 sandboxing to do 99% of what SPAs offer today, so there's merit to both trains of thought.

[illiarian]

> You don't even understand the term

"Big web" isn't a term. It's some vague unspecified idea that you may have.

> By definition their stance is 100% about "a big web".

By what definition?

> It's an ideology that the browser shouldn't become another OS competing vs one that it should.

Of course this is not Firefox's stance.

[BoorishBears]

I replied to a comment that states:

> There's no real debate because 2/3 players actively believe & push for a small web. It's a miserable rock & hard place situation, trying to figure out what to do when there's only one ayer who believes in a web platform at all.

And dozens of replies have all managed to understand what they meant. They didn't need to define small vs big web because for those familiar with the subject matter it's a pretty intuitive way to describe the two opposing ideologies

Not every comment can be written for every reader. Which is why I recommended you read more of the thread to gain some understanding before replying.

-

> Of course this is not Firefox's stance.

The "of course" is unnecessarily condescending and simply doesn't follow. Firefox OS was code named "Boot to Gecko"... as in boot into Mozilla's browser engine. Mozilla openly stated they'd push for new Web APIs to enable it.

https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.dev.platform/c/dmip1GpD5...

For a long time all the major players were for a "big web", it's no coincidence that the only one left pushing is the only one that didn't abandon their personal web based platform.