ĭespite Google's disinterest in responding officially, various Google engineers challenged Snyder's claims and defended the technology on Twitter.Īlex Russell, senior staff software engineer at Google, contends that Snyder has misunderstood the various web packaging proposals, perhaps deliberately. It’s also bad for privacy protections, as outlined by Brave in this post. This is part of Google’s ambition to serve the whole web from their own servers while pretending it’s coming from elsewhere. I’m glad to see Brave speaking out agains WebBundle tech (AMP 2.0). Apple WebKit engineer John Wilander filed two issues arguing that ad tech companies could use website packaging to bypass user privacy decisions.Īnd Maciej Stachowiak, a software engineer who leads the development of Apple's WebKit, also voiced opposition to Web Bundles. Snyder is not alone in his doubts about the spec. "I think the way that they're shooting for them is not valuable and has a kind of insidious side effect of allowing other things that are user hostile."
"I think that some of the ends of these tools are shooting for are valuable," he said.
Snyder concedes that some of the goals these tools aim to realize may be valuable, like assertions of resource integrity through signatures, but he objects to means being applied to get there. Separately, Google has been working to hide full URLs in the Chrome omnibox. SWF files or PDF files, just a big blob that you can't reason about independently, and it'll become an all or nothing deal," Snyder explained in a phone interview with The Register. "The concern is that by making URLs not meaningful, like just these arbitrary indexes into a package, the websites will become things like. Web Bundles set up private namespaces for URLs, so privacy tools that rely on URLs don't work. That becomes difficult when the file isn't easily teased out of a larger whole.
0 kommentar(er)
