▲ 910 ▼ Google's New Web Environment Integrity Proposal Dismissed by Brave, Mozilla, and Vivaldi (news.itsfoss.com) submitted 3 years ago by nils@feddit.de to c/technology@lemmy.world 63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 35 points 3 years ago (2 children) Brave and Vivaldi are both built on Chromium though… permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ojmcelderry@lemmy.one 79 points 3 years ago (2 children) They can still reject the proposal. Just because they're built upon Chromium, doesn't mean they need to utilise or retain every feature Google adds to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spiderman@ani.social 15 points 3 years ago (1 child) I think it's not easy this time. Any browser choosing not to implement this would not be trusted and any website choosing to use this API could therefore reject users from those browsers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) For sites that fully embrace the new web environment integrity procedure would that break chromium browsers like Brave too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] budowa_auu@lemm.ee 22 points 3 years ago (2 children) That would break websites, not browsers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 6 points 3 years ago That is semantics that wont help the users. They still need to change browser to access their banks website if their bank is enforcing WEI. There is nothing "broken" in the technical sense, the website and browser will be incompatible with oneanother. The blame is clearly on the bank but what's a single user gonna do if this becomes industry standard for banks? (I am using banks as an example of a service you cant easily avoid, this would also be true for other important stuff like digitialized government access etc ect) permalink fedilink source parent [–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 3 points 3 years ago That's was what I meant. Websites not functioning properly and informing users to use approved ones like Chrome or Edge. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheYear2525@lemmy.world 18 points 3 years ago (1 child) If only Google supports this, the rest can fork it together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Forking would be insane because of how much code is in Chromium and how much work goes into maintaining it. The realistic thing to do is to keep doing what they've been doing: maintain a modified branch. WEI would just be one of many changes between Google's version and other vendors'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheEntity@kbin.social 41 points 3 years ago maintain a modified branch So: a fork. It's not unusual for a fork to regularly merge back the upstream changes while maintaining its own set of changes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ojmcelderry@lemmy.one 79 points 3 years ago (2 children) They can still reject the proposal. Just because they're built upon Chromium, doesn't mean they need to utilise or retain every feature Google adds to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spiderman@ani.social 15 points 3 years ago (1 child) I think it's not easy this time. Any browser choosing not to implement this would not be trusted and any website choosing to use this API could therefore reject users from those browsers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) For sites that fully embrace the new web environment integrity procedure would that break chromium browsers like Brave too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] budowa_auu@lemm.ee 22 points 3 years ago (2 children) That would break websites, not browsers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 6 points 3 years ago That is semantics that wont help the users. They still need to change browser to access their banks website if their bank is enforcing WEI. There is nothing "broken" in the technical sense, the website and browser will be incompatible with oneanother. The blame is clearly on the bank but what's a single user gonna do if this becomes industry standard for banks? (I am using banks as an example of a service you cant easily avoid, this would also be true for other important stuff like digitialized government access etc ect) permalink fedilink source parent [–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 3 points 3 years ago That's was what I meant. Websites not functioning properly and informing users to use approved ones like Chrome or Edge. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spiderman@ani.social 15 points 3 years ago (1 child) I think it's not easy this time. Any browser choosing not to implement this would not be trusted and any website choosing to use this API could therefore reject users from those browsers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) For sites that fully embrace the new web environment integrity procedure would that break chromium browsers like Brave too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] budowa_auu@lemm.ee 22 points 3 years ago (2 children) That would break websites, not browsers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 6 points 3 years ago That is semantics that wont help the users. They still need to change browser to access their banks website if their bank is enforcing WEI. There is nothing "broken" in the technical sense, the website and browser will be incompatible with oneanother. The blame is clearly on the bank but what's a single user gonna do if this becomes industry standard for banks? (I am using banks as an example of a service you cant easily avoid, this would also be true for other important stuff like digitialized government access etc ect) permalink fedilink source parent [–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 3 points 3 years ago That's was what I meant. Websites not functioning properly and informing users to use approved ones like Chrome or Edge. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] budowa_auu@lemm.ee 22 points 3 years ago (2 children) That would break websites, not browsers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 6 points 3 years ago That is semantics that wont help the users. They still need to change browser to access their banks website if their bank is enforcing WEI. There is nothing "broken" in the technical sense, the website and browser will be incompatible with oneanother. The blame is clearly on the bank but what's a single user gonna do if this becomes industry standard for banks? (I am using banks as an example of a service you cant easily avoid, this would also be true for other important stuff like digitialized government access etc ect) permalink fedilink source parent [–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 3 points 3 years ago That's was what I meant. Websites not functioning properly and informing users to use approved ones like Chrome or Edge. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 6 points 3 years ago That is semantics that wont help the users. They still need to change browser to access their banks website if their bank is enforcing WEI. There is nothing "broken" in the technical sense, the website and browser will be incompatible with oneanother. The blame is clearly on the bank but what's a single user gonna do if this becomes industry standard for banks? (I am using banks as an example of a service you cant easily avoid, this would also be true for other important stuff like digitialized government access etc ect) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 3 points 3 years ago That's was what I meant. Websites not functioning properly and informing users to use approved ones like Chrome or Edge. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheYear2525@lemmy.world 18 points 3 years ago (1 child) If only Google supports this, the rest can fork it together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Forking would be insane because of how much code is in Chromium and how much work goes into maintaining it. The realistic thing to do is to keep doing what they've been doing: maintain a modified branch. WEI would just be one of many changes between Google's version and other vendors'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheEntity@kbin.social 41 points 3 years ago maintain a modified branch So: a fork. It's not unusual for a fork to regularly merge back the upstream changes while maintaining its own set of changes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Forking would be insane because of how much code is in Chromium and how much work goes into maintaining it. The realistic thing to do is to keep doing what they've been doing: maintain a modified branch. WEI would just be one of many changes between Google's version and other vendors'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheEntity@kbin.social 41 points 3 years ago maintain a modified branch So: a fork. It's not unusual for a fork to regularly merge back the upstream changes while maintaining its own set of changes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheEntity@kbin.social 41 points 3 years ago maintain a modified branch So: a fork. It's not unusual for a fork to regularly merge back the upstream changes while maintaining its own set of changes. permalink fedilink source parent