We need a better way to communicate this: Chrome doesn't "lead the spec", it "rushes out ahead of the spec". The developers using non-standard features need to be held better accountable for using non-standard features, and Google needs to be held better accountable for releasing non-standard features ahead of standardization processes.
W3C is seen as no longer relevant to HTML specs having delegated "HTML5" to WHATWG, and WHATWG seems to exist entirely to rubber-stamp Google's will (up until Firefox or Safari or increasingly less common Microsoft complains, and then they try to compromise, sometimes). WHATWG seems to have no teeth to hold Google accountable to standards processes and the Emperor Has No Clothes. (ETA: And yes, that's a hot take that's very unfavorable. I understand many individuals still care inside the W3C and WHATWG, but the end result of collective action is a dangerous rubber-stamping of a Chromium monopsony.)
Apple and Mozilla can't be compromised with. They want certain powerful features to just not exist. They don't trust users to choose for themselves. They are trying to ensure privacy at all costs by making tools that could be used to spy unavailable, no matter what the purpose.
If devs want to make something, Chrome wants to make it happen, and I want to use it, then I don't want Mozilla trying to block up the whole works.
Especially not to "protect my privacy" from a site I completely trust, that might even be an intranet site I built myself.
What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all?
There's no nice alternative, or sometimes no alternative at all besides making a native app for a bazillion different platforms.
Maybe WHATWG actually isn't just rubber stamping things because they're a google puppet, but at least partly because... it's what devs want.
> They don't trust users to choose for themselves.
No, they don't trust advertisers and spyware companies (the two seem inseparable today) to choose for them. Google has a massive conflict of interest in being the web's largest advertising network owner and sometimes the web's largest spymaster, in addition to owning the web's most common browser.
> What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all?
Firefox has had a relatively consistent stance on that since 1990 something and always had warnings when downloading executable files and worked hard to make sure that malware can't just download executable files it wants when it wants. As someone who remembers the malware wars of the 1990s, it was a reason I switched to Firefox in the first place!
It still amazes me that Chrome just auto-downloads EXEs willy-nilly without warnings or user consent, because I still remember what it was like the last time a major browser did that by default.
> it's what devs want.
That's my point: devs as a collective are morons. Devs as a collective include a lot of people whose salaries pay them to build adware, spyware, malware, and worse. Devs as a collective lack a major ethics body or ethics reviews and so far no dev has had to stand trial for a clear violation of professional ethics.
That's why you put things behind a permission system. If a site requires a spy permission to view content.... then the user can decide if privacy matters in this case.
Fingerprinting someone who doesn't care is already trivial. Just ask for their email or sign on with google or Facebook. Or don't even bother and just listen through the Google alarm clock. Or find us with our Tiles.
Mozilla wants to kill all spyware, but what about services that would probably cost a lot of money without spyware?
Unless you outlaw those(In which case I'd probably have some angry letters to write) or provide a cheap alternative... the kind of people who click "accept" on location access prompts are already spied on 8 different ways.
It's kind of an uphill losing fight to protect people from something most people like.
> What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all?
Funny, that's exactly what Google does (and all other browser follow Google) if that executable is from someone small enough that can't affort to threaten Google with a lawsuit because that's the only thing that will get them to care about false positives in their "Safe Browsing" gatekeeping list.
W3C is seen as no longer relevant to HTML specs having delegated "HTML5" to WHATWG, and WHATWG seems to exist entirely to rubber-stamp Google's will (up until Firefox or Safari or increasingly less common Microsoft complains, and then they try to compromise, sometimes). WHATWG seems to have no teeth to hold Google accountable to standards processes and the Emperor Has No Clothes. (ETA: And yes, that's a hot take that's very unfavorable. I understand many individuals still care inside the W3C and WHATWG, but the end result of collective action is a dangerous rubber-stamping of a Chromium monopsony.)