Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

An Open Letter to Web Developers

posted by martyb on Friday March 20 2020, @08:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the Do-No-Evil-Poof!-Gone. dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Moonchild, the lead developer of the Pale Moon browser writes:

"Dear Web Developer(s),

While, as a software developer ourselves, we understand very well that new features are exciting to use and integrate into your work, we ask that you please consider not adopting Google WebComponents in your designs. This is especially important if you are a web developer creating frameworks for websites to use.
With Google WebComponents here we mean the use of CustomElements and Shadow DOM, especially when used in combination, and in dynamically created document structures (e.g. using module loading/unloading and/or slotted elements).

Why is this important?

For several reasons, but primarily because it completely goes against the traditional structure of the web being an open and accessible place that isn't inherently locked down to opaque structures or a single client. WebComponents used "in full" (i.e. dynamically) inherently creates complex web page structures that cannot be saved, archived or even displayed outside of the designated targeted browsers (primarily Google Chrome).
One could even say that this is setting the web up for becoming fully content-controlled."

https://about.google/: "Our mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"

Useful to... whom?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
An Open Letter to Web Developers | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 68 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:39PM (1 child)

    by Mojibake Tengu (8598) on Saturday March 21 2020, @12:39PM (#973801) Journal

    No. Because, those silly freaks now adopted UTF-8 a standard in Minix Freax Linux, filesystems and terminals included, instead of better options that were on the table.
    I hate UTF-8, but I am also a cynical realist. It's UTF-8 then.

    If me did a new encoding for this millenium, it would be 64 bits per character, nearly compatible with all previous encodings by a couple of high bit markers.
    Because, I am well aware of 64bit register loads are the same total time complexity as funny 8bit loads on modern CPUs...

    --
    Rust programming language offends both my Intelligence and my Spirit.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 21 2020, @03:05PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday March 21 2020, @03:05PM (#973836) Journal

    If me did a new encoding for this millenium, it would be 64 bits per character,

    Well, I'm glad you aren't. Because 8 bytes per character in text files would be a terrible waste.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.