|
|
|
|
|
|
by tedmielczarek
4824 days ago
|
|
|
> As an external developer, Pepper is something I could actually implement independently for a reasonable amount of money ($2M or less) in a reasonable amount of time (1 year or less), if I could rely on Google's existing (P)NaCL toolchain. But what's the point? You'd be stuck running some subset of "things that can run on the web", and the vast expanse of existing HTML content would be inaccessible. If you want to use NaCL/PNaCl for non-web applications nobody is stopping you. Writing a "browser" that doesn't implement HTML+JS is just nonsense. > Would there be ambiguity? Yes. Google has already said they're willing to work with implementors to resolve any design or ambiguity issues. We have no basis to know whether "attempt to specify all out the ambiguitity in the Pepper API, using the Chromium implementation as the standard" is harder than "implement the already-fairly-well-specified set of web technologies". We know web technologies can be implemented fairly interoperably, we have multiple interoperable implementations. > You know, you might have something to do with that? You're not exactly a powerless or disinterested third party in this dialog. And yet we're not the only game in town, either. None of the other browser manufacturers has expressed any interest, so it's not like we're alone on this. Why should we have to carry Google's banner? We've got enough stuff on our plate. |
|
|
Unless you consider the possibility that:
- Web apps versus web documents are two very different things
- You see this as a way by which we could escape the mess and massive size of the current web stack by standardizing on a much smaller base.
- Simplifying the core stack could open the door to new competition and innovation in the field.
Personally, I'd love to see WebKit and/or Gecko and all the browser chrome implemented on top of NaCL and/or asm.js, with only the most minimal runtime, such that you're not sitting in a privileged position of running native code while the rest of us are stuck in JS/HTML/CSS hell.
> We know web technologies can be implemented fairly interoperably, we have multiple interoperable implementations.
We also know that it's ridiculously expensive and difficult, in no small part due to the resistance to enforcing things like formal validation of HTML in the browser itself, creating a problem that's as much art as it is science.
> And yet we're not the only game in town, either. None of the other browser manufacturers has expressed any interest, so it's not like we're alone on this. Why should we have to carry Google's banner? We've got enough stuff on our plate.
Apple and Microsoft have no interest in undercutting their own vertically integrated platforms.
Only you and Google have an strong interest in furthering the web, and yet, you refuse to work with Google despite them expending considerable time and money on furthering the web, while sharing their work freely.