On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 8:31:36 AM UTC+1, Anders Rundgren wrote: > On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 4:25:23 AM UTC+1, Anders Rundgren wrote: > > If I were Mozilla I would call off the quest for the "Holy Grail" (the open > > portable web), because: > > 1) It probably doesn't exist > > 2) It is incompatible with the non-FFOS world which have no problems > > whatsoever writing "Apps" > > 3) Will never be able to support a large class of intrinsically proprietary > > systems like payments not to mention security hardware > > 4) It eventually makes Mozilla weaker > > > > A better solution is looking into Chrome Native Messaging which still > > enables the world creating fully platforms-independent web applications > > which is what really counts. > > > > Chrome Native Messaging should also have a fairly small footprint both as > > an implementation as well as a true web standard. > > > > Cheers, > > Anders Rundgren > > http://blog.chromium.org/2013/10/connecting-chrome-apps-and-extensions.html > > Suggested enhancements to Chrome Native Messaging: > http://webpki.org/papers/web2native-bridge.pdf > > Note: This take on the matter is a pure API not depending on additional > extensions
This concept (Web-Portable/Platform-Proprietary) is BTW already established: HTTPS Client Certificate Authentication is supported by all browsers since almost 20 years back. It exposes a fully standardized interface to Web Applications which simply is an URL. In spite of that it is entirely proprietary with respect to integration in the browser platform with implementations based on PKCS #11, CryptoAPI, JCE, .NET, NSS as well as working with a huge range of secure key-containers like SIM, PIV, TEE, TPM, "Soft Keys". This side of the coin has not been standardized since it [provably] wasn't needed. _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
