What’s wrong with this? And will WebCrypto fix it? I don’t think so. Let’s look at the good, the bad, and the ugly of in-browser cryptography and the WebCrypto API. Most of the ugly is the fact that it's in a browser. He specifically has a go at Kim Dotcom's MEGA and its promises of security.]]>
Are the features that Google wants Microsoft to put into its browser those WebKit vendor prefixes? It's certainly relying on them in many of its web properties – and that would explain why it wants changes to Internet Explorer, allowing it to simplify the code in its JavaScript libraries and developer kits.
It's tempting to build apps that rely on the latest features, and if they'll run on most of the devices out there, well, the rest will catch up someday. But that's a rationale that assumes that the W3C will standardise on those experimental features, and that the resulting CSS and HTML markup will end up in new editions of current browsers quickly. His conclusion: "Google appears to be using user agent sniffing to deliver different experiences to different browsers — a poor approach to modern web design".]]>
Even with the terrible data, I think it’s safe to say that more tabs means more power. For simplicity, let’s just say that it is about 0.18 watts per tab. If you have 100 tabs open at a time, you'll chop an hour off your battery life. (No word on what happens if any of them is running Flash, or if you kill it.)]]>
Jonathan Mayer, a graduate student at Stanford, is among the most visible and technology-fluent members of the privacy constituent within the working group. And he is losing faith in the negotiations.]]>
Adobe contributes to standards in open browser implementations for many reasons.
One of them is that our new generation Edge tools use a ‘web design surface’. For well over a year now, we have chosen to use the Chromium Embeded Framework (CEF) to provide this ‘web design surface’. So naturally, we will contribute to Blink since it is now the core engine that powers CEF.
Another reason for contributing to open browsers is to accelerate the availability of new features on the web. This is why we collaborate with Mozilla on a number of standards and contribute code to Gecko (like this patch on masking for canvas). And this is why we will also contribute to WebKit, in addition to Blink, now that the two are separate projects.]]>
Not really.
While you can certainly read the source code, we're fully aware that actually tracking and understanding a modern HTML renderer is extremely difficult. In addition, the first changes we will make are intended specifically to break compatibility with WebKit, so the only organisation with sufficient resources to track our changes will no longer be able to do so.
In practice, this allows us to call the project "open" while simultaneously ensuring Google will be the only effective contributor to the Chrome and Blink source now and in the future. We've had enormous success co-opting the language of open source in the past to imply our products are better, and we aim to continue with that strategy. ]]>
The European Commission will impose a penalty by the end of March for Microsoft's violation of a 2009 pledge to allow European users of its Windows operating system to choose among competing browsers, according to a Reuters report citing three anonymous sources.
The European Commission accused Microsoft of violating that promise last October, noting that between February 2011 and July 2012, Windows failed to provide a browser choice. There's an unusual background to this story, which we hope to bring to you in the next few days. (Thanks @challengingviews for the link.)]]>
There are, in fact, many well-written Flash-based programs that behave like model citizens. So why should they be punished for the sins of a few bad actors?
That's the philosophy behind the Internet Explorer 10 Flash compatibility whitelist. Alas, it's not well documented, which is why I decided to write this post.
Wonderfully comprehensive (the list is online), as well as intriguing. You could spend all day saying "Why that site? Why this site?"]]>
Even so, it will take our collective efforts to give consumers the control they’re asking for. As we acknowledged at the time, enabling the signal is only part of the solution. The second is how we and others respond to the request when they encounter it.]]>
Windows 8 users in Europe are now given the choice of which browser - including Microsoft's own Internet Explorer - they wish to install. Good for Chrome, if it has a Windows 8 Metro version. Does it?]]>
Opening up an external link in a new window basically shouts out “Darling, don’t leave me!”, with your site sobbing in the background like a jilted lover. There are other pertinent accessibility reasons too.]]>
Can we instead on production sites standardize on something like “this site requires (experimental) features not yet present in your browser” (Thanks @getify for the idea) and a link to instructions on how they can update their browser, or if it is a browser specific feature, information about the feature and why it isn’t yet supported in their browser of choice.]]>
]]>